

EPDE 


ortionmen 


v t of Representatives 



SIXTY-SEV/ENTH CONGRESS 
FI'/rST SESSION 


, ■; •. j.. 


MONT>^AY, JUNE 27, 1921 
TUES:{DAY, JUNE 28, 1921 
WEDNIESDAY, JUNE 29, 1921 



57581 


WASHINGTON. 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1921 












COMMITTEE ON THE CENSUS. 

House of Representatives. 

SIXTY-SEVENTH CONGREs4;. FIRST SESSION. 

-Oi'k. 


ISAAC SIEGEL, New Y( 


Chairman. 


LOUIS W. FAIRFIELD, Indiana. 

JOHN W. LANGLEY, Kentucky. 

HORACE M. TOWNER, Iowa. 

LOREN E. WHEELER, Illinois. 

JAMES P. GLYNN, Connecticut. 

HENRY E. BARBOUR, California. 

CARROLL L. BEEDY, Maine. 

CHARLES L. FAUST, Missouri. 

ADAM M. WYANT, Pennsylvania. 

Benjamin Ladisky, ^ Jlerk . 


WILPjIAM W. LARSEN, Georgia. 
SAMtJEL M. BRINSON, North. Carolina. 
JOHIU It. TYSON, Alabama. 

MORiGAN G. SANDERS, Texas. 

JOH^l J. McSWAIN, South Carolina. 
JOHN 1 E. RANKIN, Mississippi. 


Subcommittee. 


} 


LOUIS W. FAIRFIELD, Indian; a, Chairman. 

JOHN W. LANGLEY, Kentucky. WILLI AY,I W. LARSEN, Georgia. 

HORACE M. TOWNER, Iowa. . SAMUEL. M. BRINSON, North Carlina. 



ilBRARY Of CONGRESS 

RECEIVES 


i (i 1925 


DOCUMENTS DIVISION 
















CONTENTS. 


^Statement of: Pag«. 

Hon. Wallace H. White, jr., Maine_ 5 

Hon. George Holden Tinkham, Massachusetts_ 7 

Hon. Marion E. Rhodes, Missouri_ 9 

Hon. Theodore E. Burton, Ohio_ 17 

Hon. Ira G. Hersey, Maine_ 26 

Hon. Eugene Black, Texas_ 30 

Hon. Albert W. Jefferis, Nebraska_1_ 35 

Hon. Burton E. Sweet, Iowa___ 38 

Hon. James G. Strong, Kansas_ 55 

Hon. Hays B. White, Kansas_ 59 

Hon. John E. Rankin, Mississippi_ 64 

Hon. Isaac V. McPherson, Missouri_ 66 

Dr. Joseph A. Hill, Assistant Director of the Census (reapportion¬ 
ment figures)_ 70 

Brief of Hon. Marion E. Rhodes, Missouri- 91 

3 























APPORTIONMENT OE REPRESENTATIVES. 


Subcommittee of Committee on the Census, 

House of Representatives, 

Wdshington, D. G., June 27, 1921. 

^ The committee assembled at 10.30 a. m., this day, Hon. Louis W. 
Fairfield presiding. 

Mr. Fairfield. The committee will be in order. Mr. White of 
Maine desires to make a statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WALLACE H. WHITE, JR., REPRESENTATIVE 
IN CONGRESS FROM MAINE. 

Mr. White. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I 
appreciate the opportunity given me to present my views to you 
relative to this reapportionment question. Because of my under¬ 
standing that the records of the committee which dealt with this 
same problem in the last Congress are to be a part of your record 
and is to be considered by you at this time, and because of the debate 
upon the last bill with which you are already familiar, I feel that 
I should be very brief. 

It seems to me there are two principal considerations which may 
properly influence this committee and the House in this matter. 
If the efficiency of the House as a parliamentary body is of first 
importance, then we must concede that the House may be of such 
size that it will become less orderly and that its effectiveness as a 
deliberative, legislative body will be impaired. One who believes 
that a Member’s first duty is the consideration of measures upon the 
floor of the House is justified in refusing to cast his vote at this time 
to add further to its Members. Indeed, he might well justify a 
vote to reduce even the present membership. But if we give heed 
to the changes which have taken place about us, if w r e consider the 
demands now made upon the time, the energy, and the thought of 
a Representative outside of and beyond the consideration of legis¬ 
lative proposals, we must conclude that every Member is now work¬ 
ing to the limit of his capacity and that to take a single Representa¬ 
tive from any State is a Tvrong to that State and to its citizens. The 
trouble here to-day is not in the numbers of the House but is in the 
mass of legislation which Congress is asked to consider and in 
the multiplicity of duties laid upon a Member which prevent pains¬ 
taking consideration of legislative proposals in either substance or 
form. The number of bills and resolutions introduced into every 
Congress is now appalling. 

We have seen in the last few years a centralization of authority 
in Washington, a multiplication of boards, bureaus, and commis- 

5 



6 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


sions here, an increase in governmental activities which must put to 
shame the loosest constructionist of our Constitution of a generation 
ago. To-day we see industry, transportation, the distribution of the 
products of the field, the farm, and the shop, our entire economic, 
financial, and social life controlled or in some degree regulated by 
governmental agencies, and the Member of Congress is to-day not 
only a legislator, but in large degree is the personal representative 
here in Washington of every business house and every citizen of his 
district, whose interests and whose life are affected in any manner by 
this omnipresent government of ours. If the mass of correspond¬ 
ence from art} 7 State is to have attention, if this multitude of calls 
from the citizens of his State is to be met, if attention to these mat¬ 
ters is a necessary and proper duty resting upon a Congressman to 
be performed for his people, then you may not with justice to the 
people of any State reduce their representation. You simply put 
upon a less number of Representatives a burden of work which-the 
present number can not now do and at the same time inform them¬ 
selves as to legislation generally. 

In this connection I venture the statement that there are not 20 
Members of the House who were present in the last Congress who 
can stand examination to-day upon the provisions of the transporta¬ 
tion act, one of the most important pieces of legislation passed in 
a decade. I dare to assert that, outside the members of the Mer¬ 
chant Marine Committee, there are not 10 Members of the last House 
who can give a statement covering the provisions of the last mer¬ 
chant marine act, probably the most comprehensive piece of legis¬ 
lation touching our merchant marine passed in 20 years. This state¬ 
ment will hold with respect to other legislation. It does not mean 
that Members are not industrious. While a clerk at the Senate some 
20 years ago I had an opportunity to get a somewhat intimate view 
of the activities then of Members of the Senate and of the House, 
and no doubt exists in my mind but that the Senator and Representa¬ 
tive of to-day works infinitely harder than the Senator and Repre¬ 
sentative did then, but he does not now begin to have the familiarity 
with legislation possessed by his predecessors. There is only one 
explanation, and that I have already suggested. His time is so 
occupied with an infinite variety of duties that he can not be a stu¬ 
dent of legislation. Reduce the representative now of any State and 
you will further aggravate the evil. 

If you gentlemen accept as sound the conclusion I have just stated, 
you must report a bill fixing the size of the House at 483, the number 
necessary to prevent any State suffering loss. If you reject it, then 
you have no justification in principle to report a bill authorizing 
any increase at all. For you to compromise and agree upon an inter¬ 
mediate number, retaining the present representation of some States, 
keeping in office some Members, and legislation against other States 
and Members would be a repudiation of principle and a gross injus¬ 
tice to the State or States and to the Members you sacrificed. I 
thank you. 

Mr. Fairfield. Now, Mr. Tinkliam, do you wish to make a state¬ 
ment ? 

Mr. Tinkham. Mr. Chairman, I did not come with the expectation 
of really being heard this morning. I just want to be heard some 
time during the week. 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


7 


Mr. I airfield. I think we told you, Mr. Tinkham, that you would 
be heard this morning. 

Mr. Tinkham. Very well. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE HOLDEN TINKHAM, REPRESENTA¬ 
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MASSACHUSETTS. 

Mr. Tinkham. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee*, I 
shall take very little time. I am going to ask for a ruling by the 
chair after reading two statements—one made in the report of the 
committee in the last Congress and the other purporting to be a reso¬ 
lution of this committee of June 2 last. On page 5 of the report upou 
the reapportionment bill made by this committee in the last Congress 
appears the following words: 

The second section of the fourteenth amendment provides that “ Where the 
right to vote in any election * * * is denied to any of the male inhabitants 

of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, 
or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the 
basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the 
number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens 
twenty-one years of age in such State.” This amendment was by proclamation 
declared satified on the 28th day of July, 1868. 

I think it is a fair inference that the committee in making that 
report intended that if the information was before the committee as 
to the exact amount of the disfranchisement that the general appor¬ 
tionment bill should carry an application of the fourteenth amend¬ 
ment. And vet I have in my hand a resolution passed by your com¬ 
mittee on the 2d of June, of which the last paragraph reads: 

It is the opinion of the committee that these provisions clearly require as 
proper procedure the introduction of a bill or resolution providing for an in¬ 
vestigation with reference to a particular election in a specific State or States, 
as to whether in such election in such State or States the right to vote was de¬ 
nied, within the meaning of the Constitution, to citizens entitled to the right to 
vote. 

Although that resolution does not say specifically that the com¬ 
mittee in making up the apportionment bill can not as a matter of 
law reduce representation, the fair inference is that they can not, 
because the .committee says that the proper method is to proceed in 
relation to a specific election in any specific State or States. I want 
a ruling by this committee whether its position is that in a general 
apportionment bill the fourteenth amendment can not be applied. 

Mr. Fairfield. This subcommittee is not competent to act upon 
that at all, because we are instructed, first, to consider, so far as it is 
applicable, the testimony that has already been submitted. In the 
second place, we have been instructed to hear only additional evi¬ 
dence, new in character, with regard to any of the bills that have 
been presented. We were specifically told not to report the number 
in a bill. We have no authority even to recommend the number. 
We are just to conduct a hearing and are absolutely limited to that. 

Mr. Brinson. The committee itself meets Thursday and can deter¬ 
mine this other matter. 

Mr. Tinkham. Then you have no authority to hear or any wish 
to have the question involving the enforcement of the fourteenth 
amendment presented to you, either as a subcommittee or by your 
committee on apportionment? All I want is a ruling, Mr. Chair¬ 
man. 


8 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


Mr. Fairfield. If you have any additional matters to present to 
the subcommittee, we shall be glad to hear from you. 

Mr. Tinkham. That isn’t what I want. .1 want to know whether 
or not your committee is going to take into consideration the applica¬ 
tion of the fourteenth amendment to this apportionment bill. 

Mr. Fairfield. Do you mean the subcommittee? 

Mr. Tinkham. The subcommittee, or, if you can tell me, the gen¬ 
eral committee. 

Mr. Fairfield. I don’t know what the general committee will do; 
but the subcommittee has no authority and can take no action in the 
matter. 

Mr. LarseN. We have no authority to consider anything. Our 
authority is limited to the taking of evidence. 

Mr. Langley. We have no authority to make a ruling that will 
bind the committee. A motion was adopted the other day when 
this subcommittee was appointed that we are only to hear testimony, 
or rather statements, and report to the full committee without any 
recommendation. 

Mr. Tinkham. That is all I want to know. I am only interested 
in the application of the fourteenth amendment, which I think prop¬ 
erly, legally, and constitutionally applies to the apportionment bill. 
If your committee has taken the position and does take the position 
that the fourteenth amendment has no application to the general 
apportionment bill I have nothing to say. 

Mr. Fairfield. We are simply without authority to act. Is that 
all, Mr. Tinkham? 

Mr. Tinkham. That is all I have to offer. 

Mr. Fairfield. If you have anything new to offer we shall be very 
glad to hear you. 

Mr. Tinkham. There is no use of my offering any testimony, Mr. 
Chairman, if the ruling of your committee or your attitude is that 
the fourteenth amendment has nothing to do with the general appor¬ 
tionment bill. I don’t want to waste your time, and I surely don’t 
want to waste my time. 

Mr. Fairfield. The chairman has made no statement either direct 
or by implication. He has simply said that we are without authority 
to make any recommendation in the matter, or without 'authority to 
take action or rule upon the matter, which can only come before the 
full committee. We are expressly limited by the action of the full 
committee and are going to keep within the scope of what we were 
especially deputized to do. 

Mr. Tinkham. I only have the right to appear before tribunals 
which have some authority. If the chairman will present to the 
general committee a statement from me to this effect, I shall be very 
pleased, namely, I believe that the fourteenth amendment has appli¬ 
cation to a general apportionment bill, and that I shall be pleased 
to appear before the committee at any time they wish to argue that 
proposition. 

Mr. Fairfield. This whole proceeding will be reported to the 
general committee. The fact that you appear here to-day and your 
full statement will be a part of that record. 

Mr. Rhodes is here, and we shall be very glad to hear his statement. 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 9 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARION EDWARD RHODES, REPRESENTA¬ 
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MISSOURI. 

Mr. Rhodes. Judging from what the chairman has just announced 
in response to the statement by the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Tinkham, I take it that the object of this meeting this morning 
is to hear those interested in the apportionment bill for the purpose 
of getting their views and making up a record. 

Mr. Fairfield. That is exactly the purpose of the committee. 

Mr. Langley. And then to make a report to the full committee 
without any recommendation as to the policy to be pursued or action 
taken. 

Mr. Rhodes. I did not appear expecting to be heard at this time, 
but inasmuch as the chairman has expressed a willingness to indulge 
me that privilege, I wish to thank you and avail myself of it. I 
listened with interest to the statement of Mr. White a few moments 
ago. There is no State in the Union to-day that is more concerned 
in the result of an apportionment bill than is the State of Missouri, 
for the reason that if this Congress should finally pass reappor¬ 
tionment legislation providing for a membership of 435, in that 
event Missouri will lose two Members. If the membership should be 
fixed at 460. in that event Missouri will lose one Member. 

Now, gentlemen, I have reviewed the Constitution of the United 
States from section 2 of Article I down and including the fourteenth 
amendment and find that the only authority there is vested in Con¬ 
gress to enact reapportionment legislation is found in section 2 of 
Article I, together with what appears in the fourteenth amendment. 
Therefore it is clear to mv mind that the object of taking the census 
once in each 10 years, as is authorized in section 2 of Article I of 
the Constitution, is to do two things, viz, to apportion direct taxes 
and to apportion representation in Congress. 

FolloAving the taking of the First Decennial Census in 1790, once 
in each period of 10 years Congress has passed reapportionment legis¬ 
lation. Since .1842, at which time Congress first authorized the 
laying out of States into congressional districts, few iStates have 
lost membership under the various reapportionment acts. I recall 
distinctly under the reapportionment act of 1882 the State of Maine 
lost a Member, and a provision was put in the reapportionment act 
at that time providing for such contingency. 

In reading the debates in the House and reviewing reapportion¬ 
ment legislation I find that the States have been very jealous in pre¬ 
serving their membership; and with all due regard to the views of my 
distinguished colleagues who advocate fixing a maximum member¬ 
ship of the House, I must say that the outstanding idea in the Con¬ 
stitution is that the lower House of Congress is the representative 
branch of government and should be increased from time to time as 
the population increases under each decennial census. In other 
words. I do not agree that any man is justified in saying that we have 
reached such a point in our national life that the maximum member¬ 
ship of this House should be fixed at 435, 460, or 483. I want to say, 
gentlemen, that this Government should do something to keep alive 
the spirit of patriotism in the minds of the citizens of this country, 
and it is largely through the Representatives of the lower House of 


10 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


Congress that we Rave a chance to keep close to the people. And my 
humble judgment is that with a population of 105,000,000 people 
this Government is just as well prepared to maintain a representa¬ 
tive body of 483 Members, or 500 if necessary, as the original thirteen 
States were to maintain the lower House of Congress consisting of 
one Member for each 30,000 population. 

Mr. Langley. Is it not your opinion that the gradual increase in 
population has proportionately increased the work of each Member of 
Congress, and that as a result of that additional population there is 
necessity for a larger number of Representatives in order properly 
to transact the increased business ? And has not the enfranchisement 
of women greatly added to our work? 

Mr. Rhodes. My experience is that that statement is absolutely 
true. And there can be no question but what the enfranchisement 
of the women of this country has added largely to the work devolving 
upon individual Members of Congress. And that is one of the argu- # 
ments which in my judgment is material and relevant, and which this 
Congress, in the light of a multitude of new problems, must take into 
consideration. By whatever action the committee takes I shall be 
bound and to it I shall cheerfully conform. I want to remind you 
now that no State in this Union has ever lost membership in Congress 
under a reapportionment act but what it has protested against the 
loss of such membership. 

I was reading but recently the debates in Congress which took 
place just 20 years ago. Under a proposed bill reported by this 
committee at that time the State of Maine would have lost a Mem¬ 
ber. Mr. Burley, who was a Member of the House at that time, 
proposed an amendment increasing the membership to such a num¬ 
ber as would save the loss of a Member to the State of Maine; and 
you will find this peculiar language in the apportionment act of 
1901: 

If the number hereby provided for shall in any State he less than it was 
before the change hereby made, then the whole number of Representatives in 
such State hereby provided for shall be elected at large, unless the legisla¬ 
tures of the said States have provided or shall otherwise provide before the 
time fixed by law for the next election of Representatives therein. 

In reviewing the membership of States under that apportionment 
act I find that no State lost a Member. Therefore the question arose 
in my mind, How does it come about that this unnecessary language 
appears in the law? So, on inquiry, it was suggested that possibly 
the bill had been amended in the Bfouse, and on reading the debates 
I found that was true. So, as I say, during all the years of reappor¬ 
tionment legislation, beginning with the year 1842, the States have 
been very jealous in protecting themselves against loss of member¬ 
ship. 

Therefore, as a Representative of this body from the great State 
of Missouri, having 16 Members in Congress, I wish to protest 
against the passage of such legislation as will reduce the membership 
of my State in this body; and I will tell you why. At the time the 
census was taken last year an unusual industrial condition prevailed 
in Missouri. Thousands and tens of thousands of our working peo¬ 
ple at that time were absent from the State. They had gone to 
Cleveland and to Detroit and to other large industrial centers to the 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 11 

extent that when the enumeration was completed the State of Mis¬ 
souri had only gained a population of 3.4 per cent over the pre¬ 
ceding census, as compared with Ohio, New York, California, and 
certain other States which made larger gains. 

Mr. Larsen. What peculiar conditions existing in. the State of 
Missouri in 1910 had the effect of reducing its representation, or 
would have had that effect if the membership of the House had not 
been increased? 

Mr. Rhodes. I know of no condition existing at that time that 
would be applicable to the present situation. 

Mr. Larsen. Is it not a fact that the census of 1910 showed a con¬ 
dition of facts which, if it had not been for the increase in member¬ 
ship of the House at that time, Missouri’s representation would have 
been decreased by one or two Members? 

Mr. Rhodes. That was probably true, and was probably true of a 
large number of other States. 

Mr. Larsen, ^tou do not know of any abnormal condition existing 
there at that time, do you ? 

Mr. Rhodes. No, sir"; I do not. 

Mr. Langley. What year was that? 

Mr. Rhodes. Ten years ago. 

Mr. Langley. I was on the committee at that time and favored the 
increase, and I think the action taken was wise. 

Mr. Rhodes. I will say this, gentlemen, that this question has 
arisen not only with regard to one State, but it has always arisen. 
Following the taking of each decennial census, there has been an in¬ 
crease in the House from the foundation of the Government to the 
present time. 

Mr. Larsen. Your point is this, that the abnormal conditions ex¬ 
isting in 1920 were such that the population from some States moved 
into the industrial centers of other States. 

Mr. Rhodes. That is it. 

Mr. Larsen. Do you not consider that the States of New York and 
Pennsylvania are industrial States, as much so or perhaps more so, 
than an} T other States in the Union.? 

Mr. Rhodes. I will concede that. 

Mr. Larsen. If so, how is it that they will be entitled to no in¬ 
crease unless we increase the membership of the House? 

Mr. Rhodes. I have said that they are entitled to an increase. 

Mr. Fairfield. According to the last census New York will not 
get any increase. 

Mr. Langley. But if we increase the membership of the House to 
483, then, New York will be benefited by four additional Members. 

Mr. Larsen. What is the logic of your position? You say that 
the population was withdrawn from the agricultural States and 
moved into the industrial States. If that is true, why is it that the 
membership of New York and Pennsylvania will not be increased 
under the apportionment unless we increase the membership of the 
House ? 

Mr. Rhodes. Gentlemen, that bridge may be crossed when, it is 
reached. I would like to finish the statement I was about to make. 
Because of the industrial conditions in our State the population had 
largely left temporarily and had gone into certain industrial cen- 


12 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


ters, such as Cleveland and Detroit; but that population is .now 
coming back, it is returning and has returned very largely. 

I haven’t suggested by any means that the representation should 
be reduced. That is not my point. 

Mr. Larsen. To what extent did they leave? 

Mr. Rhodes, They left to the extent that Cleveland and Detroit 
both show a larger population in the last census than St. Louis, 
which formerly ranked fifth in point of population. Now, it ranks 
seventh. Cleveland and Detroit are so situated geographically as to 
draw from the population of Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri, and actu¬ 
ally did draw a large per cent of our population. 

Mr. Larsen. Is it not a fact that St. Louis is a great industrial 
center ? 

Mr. Rhodes. The city of St. Louis is not the only industrial center 
in Missouri. 

Mr. Langley. It depends upon what you mean by “ industrial t 
center.” My district in Kentucky has increased nearly 100,000 in * 
population in the last decade. That was largely the result of a con¬ 
siderable portion of it being what you might term an “ industrial 
center” though it embraces no large city, and is largely rural. It 
was the result mainly of the attraction of capital and labor to the 
ooal and oil fields. I think some gentlemen are using the term “ in¬ 
dustrial center ” in too limited a sense. 

Mr. Rhodes. St. Louis is our great industrial city, but it is not in 
my district. 

Mr. Fairfield. You say New York has not gained at all, and yet 
North Carolina, that does not compare with New York as an indus¬ 
trial center, gains one. 

Mr. Brinson. Many that are living in North Carolina work in 
these war industries. That is, they did during the taking of the 
census. 

Mr. Rhodes. I don’t know what rule the enumerators were gov¬ 
erned by. 

Mr. Langley. I was formerly connected as an official with the 
census office and know something about that. There is no absolute 
rule that can be followed. Sometimes they register from where they 
work, and sometimes they give their voting residence. As a rule, 
however, they report them where they are living at the time. 

Mr. Rhodes. I assume that it would be the place of legal residence. 

Mr. Langley. No; I think the general rule is the reverse. The 
war workers, for example, were reported from the District of Co¬ 
lumbia, because they were here working at the time, although most 
of them planned to return finally to their homes. 

Mr. Fairfield. There could be no wholesale census that would 
make this disparity upon which the argument is based. Take the 
State of North Carolina, it gains one; Texas gains one; and Wash¬ 
ington gains one. 

Mr. Rhodes. I only mentioned that incidentally as accounting for 
the fact that our State did not show that percentage of increase in 
population that certain other States have shown. I have not sought 
to analyze the result of that situation as applied to other States, but 
I am just simply insisting that the membership in the House of 
Representatives be fixed at such a number that no State will lose a 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


13 


Member, and hold that under the Constitution of the United States 
and the practice of reapportionment legislation this committee and 
Congress are not justified in saying that this House has attained its 
full stature in membership. 

Mr. Fairfield. You do not mean to say that constitutionally we 
have no right to fix the full representation of the country, do you ? 

Mr. Rhodes. I sav there is no express provision in the Constitution 
providing for fixing a maximum membership. I will say that. 

Mr. Fairfield. The Constitution does provide for the reappor¬ 
tionment of the House, does it not ? 

Mr. Rhodes. Yes; and it provides for the taking of a census for 
that purpose. 

Mr. Fairfield. It provides for the taking of a census upon which 
is to be based the maximum number of Representatives, or upon 
which the reapportionment of representation of each of the several 
States is to be made. 

Mr. Rhodes. For 50 years the apportionment acts have fixed the 
ratio for that purpose. 

Mr. Fairfield. It is only a matter of fixing the ratio. 

Mr. Rhodes. That is true; but it certainly does not follow that 
the intimation by the chair that it fixes the maximum membership 
of the House is true. In other words, I do not see any provision 
in the Constitution which indicates that that shall be done. 

On the other hand, I do see evidence of the fact that the Lower 
House of Congress shall be a growing body responsive to the in¬ 
creased population of the country, as carrying out the idea of repre¬ 
sentative government, but I can understand how some of the Ameri¬ 
can citizens at the outset of this Government were opposed even to a 
representative form of government to the extent of creating the 
popular branch of the government; but during the debates preceding 
the formation of the Constitution of the United States it was made 
very clear that if ours was to be a representative government we 
must at least have one branch of the legislative department of the 
Government made up of Representatives responsive to the popula¬ 
tion ; and inasmuch as the legislation is initiated through committees 
I do not agree that the membership of the Lower House of Congress 
to-day at 435 is unwieldy. I do not agree that at 460 or 483 it would 
be unwieldy. I think the evidence set forth in the majority report 
of this committee in the Sixty-sixth Congress showed that it would 
not be unwieldy. 

Mr. Langley. I have been in the House a good many years, and 
it has been my observation that the average attendance in the House 
has been less since the membership has been 435 than it was when the 
membership was 392. And I think it was still larger when the House 
had less than 392. 

Mr. Rhodes. Here is the reason for it. The routine work of your 
office is such that you are required to spend more hours in your office 
than ever before. 

Mr. Fairfield. Do you realize what provision has been made for 
taking care of that excess of work, if there be such, and the cost 
of it? 

Mr. Rhodes. I do. 


14 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


Mr. Fairfield. How much, before 1917, was allowed for clerk hire 
for the individual Congressman? 

Mr. Rhodes. I think the secretary was allowed $1,500 a year. 

Mr. Fairfield. And how much is noAV drawn for clerk hire? 

Mr. Rhodes. $3,200 a year. 

Mr. Fairfield. No; $3,680 a year, including the bonus. That 
means an increase for clerical hire of $2,180 a year. Multiply that by 
435 and you get near $1,000,000 current increase in the cost of the 
Government. 

Mr. Langley. That argument will apply with some force to the 
man who permits his secretary to be the Congressman. 

Mr. Fairfield. Well, the secretary does merely the technical work. 

Mr. Brinson. As I understand it, you think that every 10 years 
the membership of the House ought to be increased sufficiently to save 
any State from loss of representation ? 

Mr. Rhodes. Well, I wouldn’t put it on that ground. 

Mr. Brinson. Well, how would you put it? 

Mr. Rhodes. I wouldn’t put it on that as a hard and fast rule for 
all time to come; but I do say that the time has not yet come Avhen this 
Congress has the right, in my judgment, in the light of the duties in¬ 
cumbent upon you and each Member of the House to say that the mem¬ 
bership of Congress has attained its full stature. I dare say that there 
are more people in your districts than ever before who know who their 
Congressman is, and more people have business with the Government 
of the LTnited States through congressional channels than ever before 
in the history of the United States. 

Mr. Langley. That is partly due to the activities of the Congress¬ 
man and the personal attention he gives to the business of his district. 
I know it is in some instances. 

Mr. F airfield. So far as the State of Indiana is concerned we are 
heartily in favor of keeping the membership down to 435. In fact,, 
both branches of our legislature at the last session passed a resolution 
urging that we keep it down to 435. The legislators and the business 
men say there is no need for increasing the membership, and that it 
would be an unnecessary expense to do so, especially in view of the 
fact that practically $1,000,000 has been added as a permanent in¬ 
crease in expense due to the war. 

Mr. Rhodes. But I do not think that is a controlling factor. 

Mr. Fairfield. No; it is not a controlling factor; that was done to 
take care of the increased clerical help. It should not be done for 
the purpose of taking care of State pride or personal interest. I 
doubt whether we would be justified in increasing the membership 
of the House. 

Mr. Langley. Thirty years ago the Congressmen conducted their 
correspondence in their own handwriting. Now, they could not 
begin to take care of one-tenth of it by that method. 

Mr. Brinson. In 10 years hence do you not think the same argu¬ 
ment you are using now for an increase in the membership of the- 
House will be used then, and that the same conditions which prevail 
now will prevail then? 

Mr. Rhodes. I would not be surprised; and if so I certainly shall 
be for an increased membership. 

Mr. Langley. So would I. 


APPORTIONMENT.OF REPRESENTATIVES. 15 

Mr. Brinson. Is it not conceivable that we will pretty soon over¬ 
tax the Capitol ? 

Mr. Rhodes. That may be true; but the gentleman has adopted a 
hypothesis which I do not concede. We have not asked for an in¬ 
crease of membership for the sole reason of preventing the loss of a 
Member. As I have already stated, under the Constitution of the 
United States and under the history of reapportionment legislation 
the time has not yet come in my opinion when anybody in Congress 
or out of Congress is justified in saying that the House has attained 
its full growth. That is what I mean to say. I want to say this, 
gentlemen, that I believe reapportionment legislation is due under 
the Constitution. And whether your bill provides for 435, 460, or 
483, or any other number, under the Constitution of the United 
States reapportionment legislation is due, and as a Member of this 
body I want to see this committee report a reapportionment bill at 
the earliest practicable opportunity. I see no good reason why 
Congress should delay the passage of reapportionment legislation. 

Mr. Fairfield. Then, as I understand you, the exigencies of any 
particular State do not justify Congress in delaying reapportion¬ 
ment at this time? 

Mr. Rhodes. Certainly not, because section 2 of Article I of the 
Constitution says “ shall.” It provides that the actual enumeration 
of inhabitants of the United States “ shall ” be made within three 
years after the first meeting of Congress, under the Constitution, 
and within every subsequent period of 10 years in such manner as 
Congress shall direct, for the purpose of apportioning the direct 
taxes and representation in Congress. 

Mr. Langley. In your study of these constitutional phases of this 
question have you reached any conclusion as to whether that pro¬ 
vision of the Constitution that you just quoted is mandatory upon 
the States to redistrict every time Congress passes a reapportionment 
bill? 

Mr. Rhodes. That section of the Constitution certainly does not in¬ 
dicate that there is any intention in the Constitution or that there 
was any intention in the minds of the framers of the Constitution 
that the States would have to lay out any congressional districts at 
all. That provision of the Constitution does indicate, however, that 
the enumeration of the-inhabitants shall be made once in each 10 
years for the purpose of apportioning Representatives among the 
several States. Xow, for the first 50 years Congress never, in the 
passage of reapportionment legislation, said anything about lay¬ 
ing out congressional districts. 

Mr. Larsen. As I understand it, your position is that the pro¬ 
vision with reference to the taking of the census is mandatory ? 

Mr. Rhodes. It certainly is. It says “ shall.” 

Mr. Larsen. What about the provision as to Congress making an 
apportionment ? 

Mr. Rhodes. Congress has always done that, except once. 

Mr. Fairfield. They always do it before the next election, how¬ 
ever. . . T 

Mr. Rhodes. Before the next election, excepting m one case. In 
1852, in the passage of that reapportionment act, Congress author¬ 
ized the taking of the census in the same act that the reapportion- 


16 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


ment Avas provided for, and conferred authority upon the Secretary 
of the Interior not only to take the census but the apportionment of 
Representatives in Congress among the several States. 

Mr. Langley. That was done. 

Mr. Larsen. It provided for the taking of the census and Avas also 
a reapportionment bill—a double-barreled gun. 

Mr. Rhodes. A reapportionment bill—Avhich was the first time 
and the only time in the history of the United States that legisla¬ 
tion of that character ay as ever enacted. While there is no power 
that could force Congress to pass apportionment legislation, the 
fact remains A\ T e do not propose to close our eyes and fold our arms 
and sit still and refuse to do our plain duty under the Constitution. 

Mr. Brinson. I believe you are right. 

Mr. Langley. You think that Avhere a State practically disfran¬ 
chises a large portion of the population of that State Congress has 
the poAver to revieAv that and make a reapportionment accordingly ?., 

Mr. Rhodes. I don’t think there is any question on earth but Avhat 
Congress has authority to do that. Congress has inherent authority 
to do that, and it has the authority to do that under section 4 of 
Article I of the Constitution, Avhich provides that the times and 
places and the manner of holding elections for Representatives and 
Senators shall be determined by the legislatures of the several States, 
except as to the place for election of Senators, unless the Congress 
shall otherAvise direct. That ansAvers that question. 

Mr. Langley. The times and places and the manner of holding 
elections. 

Mr. Fairfield. The times and places and manner of holding elec¬ 
tions, Avhich Avould mean practically the redistricting of States. 

Mr. Langley. Congress can do that, I think. 

Mr. Larsen. You do not make yourself exactly clear on one point. 
What method Avould you adopt for the protection of States that 
Avould lose representation? Would you do it by increasing the mem¬ 
bership of the House, in accordance Avith the plan suggested with 
reference to the State of Maine, or by making special provision for 
those States that are to be reduced in representation ? 

Mr. Rhodes. The only thing the State of Maine did Avas to try to 
increase the size of the House. That was the way she saved herself. 

Mr. Langley. In the case of States that lose under a reapportion¬ 
ment, would not that compel all the candidates in those States to run 
at large? 

Mr. Rhodes. That is provided for under the act of 1882. That 
act provided that in case a State lost a Member then all must be 
elected at large. 

Mr. Larsen. Do you not think it is right for a State to elect its 
Members as it sees fit? 

Mr. Rhodes. That was done prior to 1842. 

Mr. Larsen. In point of fact, is it not being done now? The State 
of Illinois elects some from districts and some from the State at 
large. 

Mr. Fairfield. Congress has authority to determine that matter. 

Mr. Larsen. Congress has no right to say how any State shall 
elect its Members. The policy has been, however, to elect Members 
from districts. 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


17 


Mr. Rhodes. Since 1842, but not prior to that time, because in 
most cases they were elected at large. Gentlemen, there isn’t a 
word in the Constitution of the United States, from the preamble 
to the nineteenth amendment that says a word by direction or im¬ 
plication about electing Members of Congress from districts. I 
want to show the gentleman that the States delegated that power to 
Congress. Section 4 of article 1 says that the State legislatures 
shall fix the times, places, and manner of holding elections for 
Representatives and Senators, except the place for election of Sena¬ 
tors, unless the Congress shall otherwise direct. So, in that case, 
the States delegated that power to the Congress. 

Mr. Langley. That provision with reference to the place of elec¬ 
tion of Senators meant then that the State legislatures elected the 
Senators and that it necessarily must be done at the State capitols. 
That is nidlified now by the constitutional amendment for election 
of Senators by direct vote of the people. 

Mr. Rhodes. If you will examine the various reapportionment 
acts you will find that nothing was said about laying out any con¬ 
gressional districts until the act of 1842. You will find that this 
act authorizes the States to be laid out into congressional districts. 

Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, was chairman of a committee in the 
House of Representatives in 1844, and held that the States had the 
power to direct the manner of electing Members to Congress either 
at large or from districts, and that Congress had no such authority, 
but that has not been the rule followed by Congress since 1842. 

Hence Congress once in each 10 years has exercised the power, and, 
so far as I know, all the States have yielded that power. 

(Thereupon, at 11.30 o’clock a. m., the committee adjourned until 
Tuesday, June 28, 1921, at 10.30 o’clock a. m.) 


Subcommittee of the Committee on the Census, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington , D. G., June 28, 1921. 
The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10.30 o’clock a. m., 
Hon. Louis W. Fairfield presiding. 

Mr. Fairfield.. The committee will come to order. I have a tele¬ 
gram that was referred to me this morning, reading as follows: 

Providence, R. I., June 27, 1921. 

Hon. LeBaron B. Colt, 

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.: 

In the matter of reapportionment of Representatives, I heartily indorse Prof. 
Huntington’s “ method of equal proportions in.” I believe this method is scien¬ 
tific and equitable and hope you will use your influence to secure its adoption 
by Congress, as it will insure three Representatives for Rhode Island. 

Emery J. Sansouci, 
Governor of Rhode Island. 

Mr. Fairfield. Senator Burton now appears before the committee 
and will make a statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THEODORE E. BURTON, REPRESENTATIVE 
IN CONGRESS FROM OHIO. 

Mr. Burton. Mr Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, 
I thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you. In the first 
place, I desire to advocate the prompt presentation of an apportion- 
57581—21-2 



18 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


ment bill. It seems to me little less than a constitutional obligation 
of the Committee on the Census of the House of Representatives to 
report such an act very soon after the taking of the decennial census. 
I regard it as unfortunate that the bill which passed the House last 
winter failed of passage in the Senate. 

Now, there is one suggestion I wish to make to you next in regard 
to the method of apportionment. In case the legislature of a State 
should fail to act, either by reason of no session or by difference of 
opinion between its house and senate, or in general from inability 
to agree- 

Mr. Langley (interposing). If you will pardon an interruption, 
Senator, your reference to the failure of the bill to pass at the last 
session of the Senate reminds me of the reason it failed. I happen 
to know something about that. At least, one of the chief reasons it 
failed of passage was that it made no provision for the States that 
lost representation under the bill. 

Mr. Burton. I thank you for the suggestion. Now, I would sug¬ 
gest there are two ways to meet such a situation. One is by author¬ 
izing the State officials to make an apportionment. The body consti¬ 
tuted for that purpose should include the secretary of state and, 
perhaps, the governor and the attorney general. That is one way, 
and I have no question as to its constitutionality. That evoked 
opposition in the last Congress, especially on the Democratic side. 

Mr. Langley. Because it provided only for the governor to do the 
redistricting. 

Mr. Burton. How? 

Mr. Langley. That was partly because it provided only for the 
governor to do it. There were other reasons, however, for the oppo¬ 
sition. 

Mr. Larsen. I understand your statement refers to the redistrict¬ 
ing of the State and the gerrymandering of counties, if it might 
be necessary? 

Mr. Burton. Yes; providing the legislature fails to act. That is 
one way. Another way is by the appointment of a nonpartisan 
board, the appointment to be made by the governor, to consist of 
four members, two from each of the leading parties. In this connec¬ 
tion I desire to call your attention to a bill which I once introduced, 
so long ago that it is almost forgotten, and I fear I shall have diffi¬ 
culty in finding a copy of it, but I am sure there is one available. I 
was the victim of a gerrymander in 1890, being placed in a district 
where the angel Gabriel himself could not have been elected on the 
ticket on which my name appeared. The bill provided for the whole 
system of apportionment of the Members, dividing the States into 
districts, by providing for a nonpartisan board of four members to 
be appointed by the governor, that board to agree if possible, if not, 
another board of five members was to be created, national in its scope, 
to sit here at Washington, the five members to be composed of two 
from each of the leading political parties and the fifth to be a nudge 
of the Circuit Court of the United States. In case the State board 
failed to agree they were to certify up their respective plans with 
a. statement of their views to the national board, and then the na¬ 
tional board should make a decision. I gave some considerable con¬ 
sideration first to the constitutionality of such a measure at that 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


19 


time, and reached the conclusion that it was constitutional beyond 
a doubt. 

Xow, I come next to the question of the size of the House; and, 
gentlemen, I have very decided views on that subject. 

Mr. Larsen. Ma}^ I ask this question before you get on to that 
point—if, instead of creating a national board the senior Federal 
judge of a court district were taken, what would you say as to that? 

Mr. Burton. That would answer the same purpose. 

Mr. Larsen. And it would be equally constitutional? 

Mr. Burton. I think so. It is all a matter of detail. Your 
thought is that instead of a State board the senior Federal judge in 
that district should act? 

Mr. Larsen. In case they failed to agree. 

Mr. Burton. In case they failed to agree; that would simplify it 
somewhat and make it preferable. You all know the obstacles in the 
way of passing a districting act in the States. Unfortunately, per¬ 
haps, there is a very considerable number of members of the various 
legislatures who are anxious to have districts in which it will be con¬ 
venient for them to be candidates. 

Mr. Langley. That is not an unusual weakness, Senator. 

Mr. Burton. And then there are jealousies among Members of the 
House here. A member of the legislature of my own State told me 
recently that he would prophesy with confidence that it would be 
utterly impossible for the legislature to pass such an act because of 
the friction and differences of opinion among the members. 

Now, on this subject of the size of the House. I have been a Mem¬ 
ber of this body under four apportionments—first that of 1880, when 
when there were 325 Members; second, that of 1890, when there were 
357 Members: and third, that of 1900, when there were 384 Members, 
in which case it was modified somewhat by the admission of other 
States; and then that of 1910, with 434 Members, I believe. 

Mr. Larsen. Four hundred and thirty-three, I think, to be exact. 
The admission of Arizona and Nevada made it 435. 

Mr. Burton. I want to say to you one thing that has impressed 
me. It has been the diminished prestige of the House, the dimin¬ 
ished standing of the individual Member, because of that increase. 
It is not merely a matter of adding to the membership an increased 
number of Members, it is like placing in a house already full an 
additional number and making the body, already large enough, alto¬ 
gether too large. I want to tell you of some of the minor disad¬ 
vantages. In the first place, it would add, to increase this body by 
48 Members, approximately $1,000,000 to the expense. This office 
building is already crowded and the space for Members occupied for 
office purposes is already utilized. 

Mr. Larsen. I think we ought to have another building. 

Mr. Burton. Then on the floor of the House, I doubt whether the 
taking out of the desks and the substituting of plain seats was an 
advantage. In the olden times Members used to sit there at their 
desks, and they would write letters, or perhaps read. If there was 
no speech being made or other proceeding had which interested them, 
they were working at their desks. But the moment some one spoke 
who made an appeal to them they were on the qui vive and gave 
attention. And the result was that a larger portion of the Members 


20 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


of the House were in attendance. If you add to the present number, 
I do not see how you are going to provide for them on the floor. 

Mr. Langley. I observe that the average attendance in the House 
Is less now with a larger number than it was when we had a' smaller 
membership. 

Mr. Burton. That is certainly true. I can remember times when, 
with a membership of 325, nearly the whole membership was on the 
floor. I remember one time in particular when a contested election 
was pending in December, I think, 1889, every Republican Member 
but one was present and acting on the floor of the House. 

Mr. Langley. You evidently do not have much faith in this un-' 
wielcly argument. 

Mr. Burton. Well, I don’t know. I am going to read something 
about that. That Member was Mr. Cannon, who was absent on ac¬ 
count of the death of his wife. On the general subject of increase of 
membership of the House I want to read to you from the report filed 
by Senator La Follette in the Senate in 1911. I collaborated with* 
him in the framing of this report: 

So large a number must make tbe House a clumsy and unw eldy instrument 
■for legislation; it hampers the field of action and diminishes the responsibility 
of each individual Member, which intensifies the very dangerous tendency to 
make of each Member a mere agent for a locality rather than the Representa¬ 
tive of a great body of the people. Again, such an increase in membership 
necessarily lodges the control of legislation in the hands of a few Members, 
with all tbe dangers of clique domination. This becomes a matter of the 
greatest importance in view of the increasing power held by the special interests 
in politics and their skill and adroitness in securing legislative favors. 

There is a quotation from Mr. Madison given in that report to this 
effect: 

The more numerous an assembly may be, of whatever character composed, the 
greater is known to be ascendency of passion over reason. 

Here is something I do not quite agree with: 

In the next place, the larger the number the greater will be the proportion 
of members of limited information and of weaker capacities. 

In another connection Mr. Madison says, and this is very inter¬ 
esting. There is some doubt whether it was Madison or Hamilton 
that wrote it, but in the discussion in 1843 it was ascribed to Mr. 
Madison: 

Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly still 
would have been a mob. 

The larger you make the body the less efficient it is for legislative 
purposes. I frankly say that a House of 300 Members would per¬ 
form the duties of what we call the lower House much more effi¬ 
ciently. And Champ Clark said it ought to be limited to 300 Mem¬ 
bers. I need not give the name, but there was a distinguished 
Senator quite prominent in politics who exerted an influence in the 
framing of one of the apportionment bills. I think his great aim 
was to increase the so-called domination of the Senate, and he 
bluntly stated that he desired the size of the House to be increased 
because it would put the control of its legislation under the commit¬ 
tee on rules. When you increase the size you diminish the oppor¬ 
tunity of the individual Member and put the body under the control 
of a few. Mr. Madison was not the first to point that out. I can 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


21 


not emphasize this argument too strongly, gentlemen. It diminishes 
the prominence of a Member. In this Congress you have just as 
many able men, ready speakers, and a spirit just as patriotic as in 
earlier Congresses, but their field of action is limited. 

Mr. Langley. My observation has been—and I have been here 10 
years—my observation has been that a few practically control a sec¬ 
tion of the House anyhow; and do you not think that would be 
equally true if avc had 300 Members—or 200? 

Mr. Burton. Not so much. The larger you make it, the smaller 
the secret circle that is going to control it. 

Mr. Larsen. And the less will be the opportunity for the indi¬ 
vidual assertion. 

Mr. Burton. Certainly. The statement was made that in the Con¬ 
gress that sat from the first Monday in December, 1910, to the 4th of 
March, 1911, the individual Member had on the average not more 
than 30 minutes in which he could occupy the floor of the House. 
Now, I have been here some three months and I do not think I have 
taken more than an hour of the time of the body. Maybe it was 
best for the House of Representatives that I should not have taken 
more, but I have a natural diffidence about asking for time. 

Noav, to recapitulate, to increase the size of the House would 
diminish the prestige of the individual Member, diminish his oppor¬ 
tunity, and would increase the domination by a few. That is the 
great argument against increasing the size of the House. I recog¬ 
nize there is a degree of attention to be given to the argument that 
no State should lose a Member, but, gentlemen, if you adopt that 
principle it is only a question of time Avhen the House will be a 
genuine mob. It has not been the custom in the past. 

Massachusetts, Virginia, and other States have lost a considerable 
number of Members. I refer to page 172 of the Congressional 
Directory, which gives the number of Representatives under eacht 
apportionment. Massachusetts lost in the census of 1810, 4 Members* 
a decrease from 17 to 13; it lost another Member, reducing it to 12, 
in 1830; and 2 more, reducing it to 10, in 1840. I think the largest 
loss in any one census was that of New York, which State lost fi 
Members under the census of 1840. Pennsylvania lost 4. Virginia* 
a State which noAV has 10 Members, at one time had 23. It lost 1 
under the census of 1820. another under the census of 1830, it lost 0 
under the census of 1840, 2 more under the census of 1850, 2 more 
under the census of 1860, 2 more under the census of 1870. I should 
haA r e stated that Virginia lost as large a number as NeAV York in that 
census of 1840. Each State lost 6 Members, so it is nothing unusual. 

Mr. Larsen. .You will perhaps remember of some of those losses. 
Do you remember Avhether or not it had a bad effect on those States 
represented or on the membership of the House at all ? 

Mr. Burton. It is so far back I could not tell. 

Mr. Langley. It had a bad effect on those avIio lost out. 

Mr. Burton. Yes; and I mean to say that I have great sympathy 
for them, but I do not think that should be a controlling factor. 

Mr. Larsen. It did not hurt legislation any ? 

Mr. Burton. Oh, I do not think it hurt legislation. 

Mr. Larsen. Therefore it did not hurt the country at large. 

Mr. Burton. Now, in 1900 the leaders of the House on both sides 
were opposed to an increase in the number. But those States that 


22 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


would lose Members made an outcry. It was said that the States of 
Maine and Virginia, that have been such factors in this great Re¬ 
public, must not lose in their membership. Mr. Littlefield, of Maine, 
and Mr. Mercer, of Nebraska—that was another State that would 
have lost a Member—emphasized that argument; and they won 
out on the principle that no State should have a diminished member¬ 
ship. Every time I have been here the argument has been made, and 
made by a majority of those who favored an increase, “ This is the 
last increase that will be made.” I never believed it, because it was 
practically an assertion, u We expect the next Congress to show cour¬ 
age, while we show cowardice.” 

I will leave this with you, Mr. Chairman, if it will be of ^my assist¬ 
ance to you. It is a photostatic copy of the apportionment act of 
1910 as it originally passed the House. That passed the House in 
the winter of 1910-11, and it was reported in the Senate the very last 
night of the session by Senator Hale, March 3, without amendment. 
That bill failed because, although the House passed the measure, the 
Senate did not. Here is a provision of that bill that I will read to 
the committee: 

Sec. 3. That as soon as the fourteenth and each subsequent decennial census 
of the population of the several States, as required by the Constitution, shall 
have been completed and returned to the Department of Commerce and Labor— 

Now separate departments— 

it shall be the duty of the Secretary of said department to ascertain the aggre¬ 
gate population of all the States and of each State separately, excluding In¬ 
dians not taxed, which aggregate population shall divide by the number four 
hundred and thirty, and the product of such division, excluding any fraction 
of a unit that may happen to remain, shall be the ratio of apportionment of 
Representatives among the several States under such census, and the Secretary 
of said department shall then proceed to divide the total representative popu¬ 
lation of each State by the ratio so determined, and each State-shall be assigned 
one Representative for each full ration of population therein and an additional 
Representaive for any fraction equal to or greater than a moiety of such ratio, 
but in no case shall a Representative be assigned for a fraction less than a 
moiety of such ratio, and each State shall have at least one Representative; and 
the aggregate number of Representatives so assigned to the States shall con¬ 
stitute the total membership of the House of Representatives under such census. 
And as soon as practicable after the Secretary of said department shall have 
ascertained the number of Representatives to which each State is entitled 
under any decennial census, in the manner herein provided, he shall make out 
and transmit to the House of Representatives a certificate of the number of 
Representatives so apportioned to each State; and he shall likewise make out 
and transmit without delay to the executive of each State a certificate of the 
number of Representatives apportioned to such State. 

Now that, while this would only have the effect of a resolution and 
might be repealed 10 years after, was a declaration that the number 
should be permanently fixed at 430. And that is just in line with 
what I have said. El very time the) T will say: “ This time, if we 
increase the number, we won’t do it next time.” The number of mem¬ 
bers in other legislative bodies of the world has been frequently 
used as an argument. The number of members of the House of Com¬ 
mons is 070, I believe. In Austria it is 510. In France it is 584. In 
Spain it is 400. Now, it is maintained that as these countries have a 
larger number of members we ought to follow their example. There 
is a very bold fallacy in that argument, as two or three objections will 
show that it should not have any effect with us. In the first place, 
those countries have in their legislative bodies members of a respon- 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


23 


sible ministry. Most of the members of the cabinet in England are 
in the House of Commons and some are in the House of Lords. 
That creates an altogether different character of legislative body. 
It is naturally dominated by that ministry. Those outside the min¬ 
istry are voters- 

Mr. Langley (interposing). Do not the President and the members 
of his Cabinet in some measure exercise an influence over Congress? 

Mr. Burton. They are altogether different. They are executive 
officers pure and simple, and they hold their tenure of office during the 
period of the President’s incumbency, while the members of the for¬ 
eign ministries hold their offices only as long as they are supported by 
a majority. It may be of interest to you to know that under the 
statute creating the position of Secretary of the Treasury—and this is 
true of him alone—he can be summoned to appear before the Senate 
or the House of Representatives, and he may be called upon at any 
time. If you should want to call upon him at any time, just introduce 
a resolution. I have visited the House of Commons a number of 
times. If you will examine the debates as reported in Hansard you 
will find that only a comparatively small number engage in discus¬ 
sion. There is one very bad effect of the large numbers in European 
legislative bodies. These different members, a considerable number 
of them, form in blocs or cliques, something absolutely out of keep¬ 
ing with our ideas. For instance, Mr. So-and-so has 10 members that 
vote exactly as he says, abdicating their independent functions, and 
telling him, “ Vote us as you please.” There may be 15, and there 
may be 20. It leads to very unwholesome results, in this, that the 
different minority cliques can make bargains with the ministry, which 
will desire to maintain its majority. The ministers will confer with 
these different cliques and ask them. u What do you want? ” and they 
will give them legislation that they would not get in a lifetime if it 
were not that they are needed to make up the majority. 

Mr. Fairfield. The probabilities are that the smaller the congres¬ 
sional district the more likely the individual Congressman will be 
to keep in touch with his constituents. 

Mr. Burton. Yes. On the Continent of Europe there are two or 
three countries that have legislature bodies that are very ineffective 
in their action. The reason of it is that they are divided up into 
different parties—national, liberal, socialist, independent socialist, 
and so on. It is that way in Germany, and in France they have these 
different blocks. Another reason against having so many members 
is this: When a man finds that he does not stand out prominently in 
the House as a figure he is more and more disposed to be a mere local 
agent for his constituents. A member is judged by his ability to get 
appropriations for public buildings, rivers and harbors, and all that 
sort of thing. And that is very commendable in its way. If there is 
any one thing I desired to promote in coming back to this House, 
having served here before very pleasantly and having served in the 
Senate, it has been to increase the influence and prestige of this 
House of Representatives. 

Ours is a great legislative body; it is the body that is nearest the 
people. It is the body that has the initiative in revenues and in ap¬ 
propriations. It is the body that responds most promptly to the will 
of the people because its members are elected every two years; and 


24 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


another factor is, because of their smaller constituencies the Repre¬ 
sentatives are in closer touch with the people. There will be no aris¬ 
tocracy in the House of Representatives, and there will be no bour- 
bonism or undue reactionary spirit, but if you keep on increasing it 
in this way, we will be a plaything in legislation, and the Senate will 
have the last word in all legislation. 

Now, gentlemen, I am very much obliged to you for this hearing. 

Mr. Langley. One question, please, Senator. 

Mr. Burton. Yes; certainly. 

Mr. Langley. Section 4 of Article I of the Constitution provides: 

The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Repre¬ 
sentatives shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the 
Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations;^except as to 
the places of choosing Senators. 

Mr. Burton. That gives very broad authority, except that last 
clause, which is now virtually obsolete. 

Mr. Langley. As to Senators ? 

Mr. Burton. Yes. 

Mr. Langley. Have you any doubt as to the power of Congress 
under this section 4 of Article I to correct any manifest evil that any 
State legislature may enact under a reapportionment act? 

Mr. Burton. Do you mean if they should pass an apportionment 
act that would be an outrageous gerrymander ? 

Mr. Langley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Burton. They have the poAver to make regulations to avoid 
the eAdls of a gerrymander. I have no doubt about that. Mr.. 
Rhodes has prepared a A T ery able brief covering the matter. 

Mr. Langley. Very able and exhaustive. 

Mr. Brinson. There has been some suggestion that it may be Avell 
at this time not to go into the reapportionment—just allow matters 
to stand as they are for another 10 years. What do you think about 
the legal features of that ? 

Mr. Burton. I do not think favorably of that. I regard it as 
practically a constitutional duty to pass an apportionment act 
promptly after the census has been taken. It has been done eA^ery 
time, and I think it would be in a measure reA T olutionary not to pass 
an apportionment act at this time. 

Mr. Rhodes. Do you not think it is mandatory under section 2, 
of Article I ? 

Mr. Burton. What is the exact language; “ Shall ” ? 

Mr. Rhodes, It says “ shall.” 

Mr. Burton. The word shall has sometimes been used in statutes, 
where it has not been regarded as altogether mandatory, but in the 
sense in which it is used in this section it seems to me altogether 
mandatory. As a matter of fact, there have been statutes where 
they provided for apportionment before the succeeding election. 
There was one case Avhere they passed an apportionment act effectWe 
after the next election, as I remember. 

Mr. Rhodes. In 1840 Congress passed an act authorizing the Secre¬ 
tary of the Interior to take the census and apportion the Representa¬ 
tives among the seA^eral States under the same act. 

Mr. Langley. That was done in 1840, but they redistricted that 
year before they took the census. 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 25 

Mr. Burton. Then the final act passed in 1843 ? 

Mr. Langley. No; that was the final act. They redistricted that 
year before they took the census. 

Mr. Rhodes. Here is what the Senator has in mind—on account 
of the error on the part of the results of the census in certifying the 
State of California they found it necessary to increase the member¬ 
ship from 330 to 334. 

Mr. Burton. That was in 1850, was it not? California did not 
come in until 1849 or 1850, I think. The apportionment act under 
the census of 1840 was not passed until 1843. 

Mr. Rhodes. That was passed in 1842. 

Mr. Burton. There was a very interesting discussion there, by 
way of digression, that may interest you. The bill passed the House 
and then went to the Senate. The question was discussed as to 
whether the House did not have the final say in regard to the ques¬ 
tion, and there were three views presented. Silas Wright, of New 
York, argued that the House did have the final say. John C. Cal¬ 
houn argued that prima facie the House had the final say, but that 
the Senate could revise or change what they had done. And James 
Buchanan went to the other extreme, and argued that the Senate was 
the better judge as to the number of Members than the House be¬ 
cause it was impartial. And somebody else used the argument that 
if the number of Members of the House was left to them exclusively 
they might swamp the electoral college by increasing the number of 
Members so that the larger States would virtually control the elec¬ 
tion of a President. 

Mr. Larsen. They would, as a matter of fact. 

Mr. Langley. Mv impression, from coming in contact with Sen¬ 
ators, aside from their individual opinions for or against an in¬ 
crease in membership, is that there is a general impression in the 
Senate that the House ought to fix the number of its Members. 

Mr. Burton. I can give you a reference on that. On August 2, 
1911, the Sixty-second Congress, first session, volume 47 of the Con¬ 
gressional Record, part 4, page 3499, Mr. Root took a prominent part 
in that debate, and I took some part in it, too. I may say that Mr. 
Root made the statement that he felt sure from personal conversa¬ 
tions that four-fifths of the Members of the Senate were opposed to 
any increase in the House. 

Mr. Langley. It is my impression that there seems to be a feeling 
in the Senate that they ought to allow the House to settle on the 
number. 

Mr. Brinson. I wonder why they failed to follow that good prece¬ 
dent in the last Congress. 

Mr. Langley. One reason was brought out before you came in, 
and that was that the bill as it passed the House made'no provision 
for those States losing representation. 

Mr. Brinson. Made no provision in what way? 

Mr. Langley. Suppose a State has 11 Members and was divided 
into districts. This is the case in my State. Under the reappor¬ 
tionment on a 435 basis there would be only 10. Now, manifestly, 
they could not be elected as formerly, and the House made no provi¬ 
sion for that kind of a case. 

Mr. Larsen. Why did not the Senate simply amend it ? 


26 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


Mr. Burton. In such a busy session it was very easy for two or 
three Members to defeat the apportionment bill. 

Mr. Langley. There was more than one reason for failure of pas¬ 
sage of that bill in the Senate. 

Mr. Newton. Mr. Lodge is very bitterly opposed to any increase. 
He is very determined on that. And Mr. Knox feels about the same 
way. Mr. Langley and I talked with them and know their views 
on it. 

Mr. Burton. At that time there was probably too much of a con¬ 
gestion of business to get the measure through. 

Mr. Newton. Oh, yes; the Senate session was nearly over. That 
must have been in February, anyway. 

Mr. Burton. I do not think it was that late. I talked Vitli Sen¬ 
ator Sutherland, and he talked as though the bill would go through. 
I think that was in January. 

Mr. Newton. It was later in the year. The Senate docket was 
overcrowded with a number of things, and there was not much chance 
getting anything passed that involved any controversy. 

Mr. Langley. I am frank to say that I was opposed to the bill 
passing the Senate, and one reason for that was that .we have about 
a half million Republican voters in Kentucky, and under the pro¬ 
visions of that bill all of the candidates would have been compelled 
to run at large, and that would probably leave about 500,000 Ken¬ 
tucky Republican voters without representation in the House. 

Mr. Burton. Well, gentlemen, I thank you for this opportunity 
of appearing before you. 

Mr. Fairfield. We were certainly glad to have you appear. Sen¬ 
ator. 

(Thereupon,, at 11.40 o’clock a. m., the committee adjourned until 
Wednesday, June 29,1921, at 10.30 o’clock a. m.) 


Subcommittee of the Committee on the Census, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington, D. C ’., June 29, 1921. 

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10.30 o’clock 
a. m., Hon. Louis W. Fairfield, presiding. 

Mr. Fairfield. The committee will be in order. Judge Hersey 
desires to make a statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. IRA G. HERSEY, REPRESENTATIVE IN CON¬ 
GRESS FROM MAINE. 

Mr. Hersey. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
was recently a member of this committee and assisted in reporting 
out the late reapportionment bill that passed the House and died 
in the Senate. That bill was reported by the Census Committee 
shortly after the returns of the last census showing the population 
of the United States, and was based upon that census. I favored, 
as you well know, an apportionment of Representatives among the 
several States, based upon that census, as all previous reapportion¬ 
ments have been made, which increased the present House from 435 



APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


27 


to 483, and so based that no State would lost a Representative. 
This was the bill reported from the committee, but it was amended 
in the House by making the number of Representatives 435, the same 
as now constituted. This would make changes in the representation 
of 14 States. Some States would lost representation, others would 
gain. 

Had this bill passed the Senate and become law it would have 
permitted the several legislatures in session last winter to have re¬ 
districted their several States to suit the legislatures. As the bill 
did not become law no redistricting could be made, as it was not then 
known how many Representatives each State would have under the 
new reapportionment. 

There is now pending before this committee a new apportionment 
bill, and the question, as I understand it, is, shall your committee 
report out at the present time an apportionment bill that would 
necessitate the calling of special sessions of the legislatures in many 
States to redistrict, or, failing to call such special sessions the Con¬ 
gressmen would all be elected at large; or, shall this committee de¬ 
lay reporting the bill until after the next congressional election so 
that the new apportionment will come before the next legislatures 
in regular session, and without the necessity of calling special ses¬ 
sions to redistrict their States at great expense. I apprehend that 
at the present time those States that gain and those States that lose 
under he new apportionment must either redistrict or have all the 
Representatives at large. My State, under the last bill passed by the 
House and which died in the Senate, would have lost a Representa¬ 
tive. The legislature will meet in regular session a year from next 
January. If a bill was passed at the present time changing our 
representation we must have a special session of the legislature to re¬ 
district, or the Representatives would all run at large. Our governor 
has publicly said that he would not call a special session to redistrict. 
My people are violently opposed to electing Congressmen at large, 
and I apprehend that that would be true of all of the States that 
would be liable to suffer such a calamity. 

While a bill reported from your committee might provide—in 
States where the representation was increased, and those States did 
not redistrict—that the new Members only should run at large, this 
would only partially cure the defect and would leave everything at 
sea and would force the new Members added to make the same fight 
for the House that they would have to make for the Senate. 

To delay the bill for a year or two, or until after the next pri¬ 
maries, would be no new thing, as Congress has many times neg¬ 
lected to make a reapportionpient to meet the next election that 
followed the new census. It is not, of course, mandatory upon Con¬ 
gress to make an apportionment immediately after the return of the 
10-year census. 

I herewith submit a table showing the different apportionments 
based on the census returns from 1790 to 1910. You will note that 
in 1790, 1800, 1820, 1830, 1840, 1870, and 1880 census periods the 
apportionment bill did not pass until after two years from the census 
year. In other words, if our apportionment bill should pass in 1922 
we would be following the precedent established in seven other appor¬ 
tionment bills, so this would be no new thing. 


28 apportionment of representatives. 


Census. 

Date of apportionment act. 

States. 

Members. 

Ratio. 


1789. 

13 

65 

30,000 

i 790 . 

Apr. 14, 1792. 

15 

105 

33,000 

1800 

Jan. 14, 1802. 

16 

141 

33,000 

1810 . . 

Dec. 21, 1911. 

17 

181 

35,000 

1820 . 

Mar. 7, 1822. 

24 

213 

40,000 

1820 .. 

May 22, 1832. 

24 

240 

47,700 

1 840 . 

June 25, 1842. 

26 

223 

70,680 

1850 . 

May 23, 1850. 

32 

234 

93,423 

I860 . 

May 23, 1860. 

34 

243 

127,381 

1870 . 

Feb. 2, 1872. 

37 

293 

131,425 

1880 . 

Feb. 25, 1882. 

38 

325 

151,911 

1890 . 

Feb. 7, 1891. 

44 

356 

173,901 

1900 . 

I Jan.16,1901. 

45 

386 

194,182 

1Q10 __ 

! Aue. 8. 1911. 

46 

433 

211,877 






Mr. Fairfield. Now, just a question there, Mr. Hersey. It would 
be constitutional for Congress to make an apportionment each 10 
years, would it not? 

Mr. Hersey. Certainly. 

Mr. Fairfield. Perfectly legal, to make an apportionment ? 

Mr. Hersey. Every 10 years ? 

Mr. Fairfield. Every 10 years. 

Mr. Hersey. Oh, yes; I think it would be. 

Mr. Fairfield. Well, if that be true, could they defer it to 12 
years, under the Constitution? 

Mr. Hersey. Make it every 12 years? 

Mr. Fairfield. Well, in any case, defer it to a 12-year period? 

Mr. Larsen. I do not think the Constitution is specific on that 
point. 

Mr. Fairfield. If they could defer it to a 12-year period, they, 
could also defer it to a 14-year period ? 

Mr. Hersey, It is all in the hands of Congress. Nobody could 
force Congress to do it. 

Mr. Fairfield. Under the Constitution do you take it that Congress 
fulfilled its obligations if it should not reapportion in 10-year 
periods ? 

Mr. Hersey. If Congress were to make an apportionment at the 
end of a 10-year period, and delays it, the delay is simply a silent 
consent of Congress that they are satisfied with the present appor¬ 
tionment. 

Mr. Larsen. If that is constitutional it would also be constitutional 
for Congress to pass an apportionment bill say in 12 years after the 
last bill, and provide in such bill that this reapportionment should 
not take effect until a given date hereafter? 

Mr. Hersey. I think so. 

Mr. Fairfield. Or, they could, under the Constitution and within 
their constitutional obligations defer it for a 20-year period, accord¬ 
ing to the same reasoning, could they not, Mr. Hersey? 

Mr. Hersey. They are acting under the old apportionment until a 
new one is made. There is no question about that. 

Mr. Fairfield. I just want to find out whether in your judgment 
we could refuse to reapportion at all, or continue indefinitely under 
the 435. 

Mr. Hersey. Let me ask a question. Suppose you do not make an 
apportionment, what then? 









































APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 29 

Mr. Fairfield. I am talking of our duty as Congressmen. Are we 
fulfilling our constitutional obligation by deferring it? 

Mr. Hersey. Well, that is a matter of opinion for Congress, as to 
whether they are doing their duty or not. 

Mr. Larsen. Of course, the Constitution says “ shall,” but “ shall ” 
has frequently been construed by the courts not to be mandatory. 
Whether this particular language in the Constitution is so or not- 

Mr. Hersey (interposing). Congress is the judge of its own mem¬ 
bership and I assume that they could make an apportionment. I do 
not know as they could in less than 10 years. The States are not 
obliged to redistrict, although the Constitution assumes that they do 
redistrict and not Congress. I do not believe that Congress has any 
right to redistrict a State. 

Mr. Fairfield. As a matter of fact, were they not in the early 
history of the country elected at large almost wholly without any 
redistricting? 

Mr. Hersey. Oh. yes; as a matter of law. Congress does not 
settle it. Congress has nothing to do with the redistricting. 

Mr. Fairfield. Your contention is that Congress at the end of a 
10-year period, a 12-year period, a 14-year period, or a 20-year period 
could refuse to reapportion and yet would be carrying out the con¬ 
stitutional obligations resting upon Congressmen? 

Mr. Hersey. Xo: I do not take that ground. I am not saying 
Congress could refuse to do anything. I am saying that Congress 
is not obliged to make any reapportionment at any certain time. If 
Congress neglects, simply neglects to do it, I do not see how they 
can be forced to do it in a certain time. 

Mr. Fairfield. Certainly they can not. What I mean to get at is 
this, which I think is a perfectly proper question: If we can defer 
it to a 12-year period, by the same reasoning v T e can defer it to a 
14,16 or a 20-year period. 

Mr. Hersey. The present situation is something that ought to be 
taken into consideration by Congress. To make a reapportionment 
at the present time would involve the country in almost endless 
trouble and expense, when by deferring it say for six months or a 
year you avoid that; it seems to me that it is a part of the duty of 
Congress to defer it. I did not advocate doing this the last time we 
passed a bill because at that time the situation was different. No 
such argument can be made to-day upon it. 

Mr. Fairfield. Do I understand that you are recommending that 
we let it pass on, over to the next election? 

Mr. Hersey. So that your redistricting would not affect the next 
election. I have no objection to a reapportionment bill being passed 
after that. 

Mr. Larsen. Your idea is not what Congress can do, but what it 
might see fit to do. 

Mr. Hersey. What I have in mind is the endless trouble and ex¬ 
pense That the country would be involved in if Congress were to 
pass a reapportionment bill now. 

Mr. Larsen. Not what I can be forced to do as a Member of Con¬ 
gress, but what I should do to carry out the provisions of the Con¬ 
stitution. What is your position on that? 

Air. Hersey. Aly "position is: I regard it an imperative duty on 
Congress on this matter, so to speak, that we should defer a reappor- 


30 


APPORTIONMENT OP REPRESENTATIVES. 


tionment at the present time, for a few months at least, until after 
the next primaries, so that th'e people may not be involved in so many 
special sessions of their legislatures. 

Mr. Langley. In Kentucky that would involve the postponement 
of it until after the next election. 

Mr. Hersey. No. 

Mr. Langley. We could not have a congressional primary in Ken¬ 
tucky until we knew how many Members we were to have; therefore 
it would take effect after the congressional election of 1922. 

Mr. Hersey. We have a regular session in December. It would be 
reported out some time during that regular session, but certainly, 
after the next primaries, so that the bill would take effect from after 
the next election. » 

Mr. Langley. Now, are you speaking about the Maine primaries? 
The dates of the primaries in different States differ. In Kentucky 
our primaries are held the 6th of August. 

Mr. Hersey. That would not make any difference. 

Mr. Langley. It would with us. 

Mr. Hersey. The bill need not be taken up until it was safe to pass 
the bill. It is not a question of whether you are going to cut down 
a State or not going to do it. I do not think that was the question 
before the Senate so much, but we forced the bill into the Senate the 
last hours of the session and they did not consider it at all. 

Mr. Langley. You stated the number of States that would be 
affected. Now, I find those that are affected by loss of representation 
to be Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Missis¬ 
sippi, Missouri, Nebraska, and Vermont. When do the legislatures of 
those States meet ? 

Mr. Hersey. I do not think they meet until a year from this Jan¬ 
uary. 

Mr. Langley. Do not a great many of them meet next winter ? 

Mr. Hersey. Not the ones that are affected, so much. 

Mr. Langley. They do in Kentucky. 

Mr. Fairfield. Our State legislature does not meet in regular ses¬ 
sion next January, but we are going to have a special session any¬ 
how. 

Mr. Hersey. Well, they might have some other cause for holding 
a special session. I was not assuming that there would be any other 
cause for the legislatures holding special sessions except this. 

Mr. Fairfield. Is there any further statement you wish to make, 
Mr. Hersey? 

Mr. Hersey. No, I think not; thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Fairfield. Now, gentlemen, do you want to go ahead and hear 
Mr. Black? Mr. Black, do you want to make a brief statement? 

Mr. Black. Yes, sir; Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT 0E HON. EUGENE BLACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
CONGRESS FROM TEXAS. 

Mr. Black. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, at the 
third session of the Sixty-sixth Congress I introduced H. R. 15217 
which provided that the membership of the House should be fixed 
at 437. Under that apportionment 8 States would gain, 9 States 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


31 


would lose, and 32 would remain the same. Now, the reason I fixed it 
at 437 was because I used an apportionment figure of 240,000. I made 
the calculations hastily so as to introduce the bill late in the afternoon 
of the day I introduced it, and after a careful revision of my figures 
I find that I made a mistake, that if it is desired to fix the member¬ 
ship at 437 we would have to use something over 239,000 as an ap¬ 
portionment figure, because the way I formerly figured, using 240,000, 
New Mexico gained 1 Representative and Louisiana lost 1, but I 
find that there are something over 6,000 Indians not taxed in New 
Mexico, and that changes the matter, and if the committee should 
want to adopt 437 as the membership of the House you would have 
to use the figure 239,471 as a basis, and in the use of that figure 
Louisiana would not lose and Rhode Island would not lose. That 
would be the difference between it and the bill that provides for 435, 
but it is not my purpose to come here and urge a membership of 437, 
because, as I say, the reason I arrived at 437 was because I used the 
240,000 in making the calculation. 

What I had in mind and advocated at the time I introduced the 
bill Avas the retention of the present size of membership of the House 
of Representatives, and that is the only purpose I have in addressing 
the committee to-day. So the bill I introduced will, of course, be dis¬ 
regarded. In fact, 1 have not reintroduced it at the present session, 
because I supported the bill at the last session, A\diich provided for 
435, and will be very glad to do so again if it is introduced. 

Now, the reason I think the membership should be kept at 435 
might be briefly stated as follows: First, I do not think that there 
is any public demand that the membership be increased. On the con¬ 
trary, if I am able to interpret the public sentiment, I believe there is 
a Avell-defined opinion all over the country that the membership 
should not be increased. Second, on account of the biennial elections 
I look upon the House of Representatives as the legislative Amice of 
the people. 

Mr. Langley. Will you pardon an interruption right there ? 

Mr. Black. Yes: I Avill be glad to. 

Mr. Langley. You say there is a Avell-defined sentiment on the 
part of the people not to increase the membership of the House? 

Mr. Black. Yes. 

Mr. Langley. I Avas a member of this committee 10 years ago and 
took part in the contest in the House, which Avas pretty sharp, on the 
reapportionment bill at that time. The same argument was made 
then. You will find it in the Congressional Record. There was a 
Avell-defined sentiment against increasing the size of the House in 
that session. Now, if that is correct, why was it increased to 435? 

Mr. Black. I think the sentiment of the people Avas against any 
increase then. I do not think the membership should have been in¬ 
creased, but it was increased. 

Noaa\ what I was about to say Avas that I look upon the House of 
Representathms in a peculiar sense as the legislative Amice of the peo¬ 
ple. and it is very important, in my opinion, that this body be so 
arranged that it be able to function as a deliberative and representa¬ 
tive body, and Ave all knoAv that by reason of the present membership 
of the House it has been necessary to adopt rules that more or less 
interfere with and restrict and circumscribe the freedom of debate, 


32 APPORTIONMENT OE REPRESENTATIVES. 

and has a tendency to concentrate all of, the legislative power, or a 
considerable portion of it at least, in the hands of committees rather 
than on the floor of the House itself. 

Mr. Langley. Do you think that is an evil ? 

Mr. Black. I certainly do think that it is a very great evil, under 
our system of government. Committees are important but should 
not become the legislative bodies. Now, if we operated under a sys¬ 
tem of government like the British parliament operates or as the 
French deputies operate, where they have a responsible ministry, and 
the majority have only to ratify "the bills which are presented by 
the responsible ministry, then I will agree that my objection would 
not be so important. But here in our country our theory of the 
Government is that committees do not legislate, but that Congress 
itself exercises that function. Therefore, the more restricted the 
rules and the more you hedge about the freedom of the Member in 
debate and in the power of voicing his convictions on the floor of 
the House the more you interfere with our representative form of 
government. 

Mr. Langley. Suppose the President dictates to Congress and 
Congress obeys the President’s will. The same situation would pre¬ 
vail in this county, would it not ? 

Mr. Black. Sure, and the more you restrict the membership and 
take away from its functions the more liable you are to have dicta¬ 
tion from outside sources. Now, in brief, the reason I think it is very 
important that the membership of the House should not be so large 
is: That it will not be necessary to put all these fetters on it in order 
to get business transacted. By reason of so many fetters you de¬ 
crease the ability of the House to do what it was intended to do, to 
wit. to act as a representative and deliberative legislative body. 

Now, my third objection to increasing the membership of the 
House is that Congress itself is asserting that we ought not increase 
the number of Government officials. We are insisting that the size 
of the Government pay roll shall be decreased rather than increased, 
and I think it would be a very bad example for us to set to the country 
to go ahead and increase our own memebership unless there was a 
real substantial purpose to be accomplished by it. Now, if the Siegel 
bill, which was reported at the last session of Congress, but not 
adopted, should be adopted, why, then, it would increase the salaries, 
the amount to be paid out for salaries to Members $360,000,1 believe, 
and the amount to be paid out for clerk hire $176,000. 

Mr. Larsen. Is that additional? 

Mr. Black. Yes; additional. And then there would be other addi¬ 
tional expenses, such as stationery allowances, mileage expenses of 
the office force, and office quarters and other expenses that would 
probably total more than the salaries of the Members and their clerks. 

Mr. Fairfield. Now, Mr. Black, if there was a real felt need for 
such an increase that additional cost would not be the primary con¬ 
sideration, but if there is no need for it and the people do not want it, 
then any additional amount added to the cost of the Government 
would not be good- 

Mr. Black (interposing). Yes. 

Mr. Fairfield. Do you know how much since 1917 the fixed charges 
of conducting the House have become; that is, how much the fixed 
charges have increased since 1917? 


33 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

™ r * Black. I could not answer that offhand, Mr. Chairman. 
lOr? i ' AIRFIELD * Do y° u remem ber what the clerk hire was up to 

Mi. Black. Fes; it was $1,500 for each Member when I came 
here, but it was too little then. 

Mr. Fairfield. Yes. It is now $3,680, is it not? 

Mr. Black. 1 es; it is, including the bonus paid to clerks. 

Fairfield. I hat makes an annual increase in the clerk hire of 
each Representative of $2,100. Multiply that by 435, the number of 
Representatives, and it makes around a million dollar increase. I 
do not object to that particular increase; I think it was necessary. 

Mr. Langley. Is it not true, Mr. Fairfield, relatively, that there 
has not been as great a proportionate increase in this regard as has 
been the increase in the cost of the Government generally ? 

Mr. Fairfield. It is more than 100 per cent. 

Mr. Black. I was just about to say, Mr. Chairman, that this mil¬ 
lion dollar increase in the cost of clerical help is comparatively small 
when considered with the aggregate of appropriations which have 
been made. Of course, if there was a real need for an increase in the 
membership of the House this item of increased expense should not 
be considered. 

Mr. Fairfield. No : but if there was no need for an increased mem¬ 
bership it surely would be considered a useless additional expense. 

Mr. Langley. Has not the work of the Members of Congress in¬ 
creased materially as the result of the enfranchisement of eleven or 
twelve million women? 

Mr. Black. I could not say that it has increased any on that ac¬ 
count; but, of course, the routine work of the Members of Congress 
has increased considerably by reason of the war and other increased 
Government activities. 

Mr. Fairfield. Do you feel that if you increase the clerk hire that 
the Congressmen might very well take care of that increased business? 

Mr. Black. I have no difficulty whatever, Mr. Chairman, in attend¬ 
ing to such business as the people of my district send to me. I do not 
know how much it will increase in the future. I think there are other 
gentlemen here who want to be heard, and I want to conclude. 

Now, those are the reasons in brief why I advocate retaining the 
membership of the House at its present size. Now, it was argued on 
the floor of the House that to retain the membership at 435, as at 
present, it will cause the loss which will result from a reapportion¬ 
ment to fall principally upon the agricultural States. Now, in my 
judgment, if that were true it would not be any substantial argument 
as to why the membership should be increased. But I do not think 
it is true. The States that would receive an increase are California, 
■Connecticut, Michigan- 

Mr. Fairfield (interposing). Texas. 

Mr. Black. And New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and 
Washington. Now, of those States I think all but two—to wit, New 
Jersey and Connecticut—might w T ell be classed as agricultural States. 
But I do not regard that as any argument at all, because under our 
Constitution the people who live in cities and the people who live in 
the rural districts are guaranteed, if we obey our constitutional man¬ 
date, equal representation. 

57581—21-3 


34 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


Mr. Langley. May I interrupt you right there ? The last census— 
of course, they have not completed all the supplemental compilations 
of the fourteenth census, but they have gone far enough to demonstrate 
this fact, that there has been a larger tepdencv on the part of the 
population to go from the rural communities to the cities than in any 
previous decade of the country ? s history. 

Mr. Black. Yes. 

Mr. Langley. And I think now that as the result of the present lack 
of demand for employment in the cities they are beginning to return 
to the farm. 

Mr. Black. I hope that is true. 

Mr. Langley. If that is true and the situation again becomes nor¬ 
mal—that is, if the population in large numbers is drifting back to 
the rural communities—would that not leave those agricultural States 
without proper representation? 

Mr. Black. That would have to be determined by the next census. 

Mr. Fairfield. An apportionment would have to be made upon the 
basis of the present census. Perhaps the two greatest urban States 
in the Union are New York and Pennsylvania, and in any event 
neither of those States receives an additional Member, so the argu¬ 
ment still remains, and your statement seems to me to be purely 
hypothetical. 

Mr. Black. Yes; and if you should do as Mr. Siegel intended to 
do and increase the membership to 483 in order to save some States 
from losing a Member, my recollection is that the State of Pennsyl¬ 
vania, for example, would gain four. 

Mr. Larsen. Under the proposed increase of 48, each of those 
States would receive an increase, while with the membership as it is 
apportioned they would not gain any new Members. 

Mr. Black. Yes. 

Mr. Fairfield. In other w T ords, they would remain as they are 
rather than strengthen. 

Mr. Black. It is my understanding that in Germany, at least be¬ 
fore the war, the aggrarian population had a greater representation 
in the Reichstag than did the urban centers. I do not undertake to 
state whether that was wise or unwise. But we have provided a 
settled method for representation in our Constitution. We have put 
upon Congress the constitutional mandate to apportion its repre¬ 
sentatives in accordance with the population, and if that population 
is greater in certain States, then we must give them greater repre¬ 
sentation unless we amend our Constitution. But, as Mr. Fairfield 
says, even if we want to take into consideration the factor of agricul¬ 
tural representation, why, then, by retaining the membership at 435 
we will still have the legislative voice of the rural sections more 
dominant than it would be if we increased it to 483. In conclusion, 
while it is to be genuinely regretted that any State should lose a 
Representative, still I do not think they can complain at the loss of 
one or more Members as long as Congress obeys the constitutional 
mandates and apportions its membership in accordance with the 
population as disclosed by the last census. I thank you, gentlemen. 

Mr. Fairfield. Just one question. You used the term “ mandate.” 
Of course, we all understand that the only authority we have is that 
granted in the Constitution, which requires that a census be taken 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 35 

every 10 years and that a reapportionment be made. Do you think 
that in harmony with our constitution obligations we can extend the 
period to a 12-year period? 

Mr. Black. No. While I. do not come before you to urge any 
immediate legislation, as that is a matter for the committee to deter¬ 
mine, but if I am correct the reason that the Aggrarian sections, for 
instance, were so much more largely represented in the German 
Reichstag than the rural districts was because they did not redis¬ 
trict. Now, if Congress should refuse to recognize the constitutional 
mandate for any considerable time, and refuse to reapportion, why, 
of course, some States would be denied the representation which the 
Constitution states they should have. Other States would be left 
with a larger representation than that to which they are entitled 
under the figures of the last census. 

Mr. Fairfield. Mr. JefFeris, do you wish to make a statement? 

Mr. Jefferis. Yes, sir; Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERT W. JEFFERIS, REPRESENTATIVE 
IN CONGRESS FROM NEBRASKA. 

Mr. Jefferis. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. I 
am thoroughly in accord with Mr. Kersey’s position that no reap¬ 
portionment bill should be passed at this time, until after another 
election, at least, for the reason that the country is too unsettled and 
there is no use of Congress passing laws that will unsettle the people 
more in their political affairs as well as in their business affairs. If 
there be any change at any time in the future, so far as I am con¬ 
cerned, I think the House should be increased. My reasons for that 
are these: At the inception of the Government it w T as deemed wise to 
have one Representative for each 30,000 people, as I understand it. 
At that time the States of the Union Avere supposed to have control 
of a great many affairs which in recent years seem to haA^e been cen¬ 
tering in the United States Government. If this centralization con¬ 
tinues, it may in time, abolish the State senates and State legislatures 
and thus have the representation entirely at Washington in order to 
carry out the purpose of centralization as indicated by the spirit 
and "sentiment that seems to be groAving. 

Mr. Larsen. Do I understand that the gentleman is ad\ T ocating 
such a theory? 

Mr. Jefferis. Well, I say if it is going to continue. For my part, 
I think a great many of these matters that are now being centered 
in Washington should be retained in the States, so that the people 
of the States might legislate on these affairs for their OAvn welfare, 
and Congress, in its OAvn wisdom, could supplement those laws or 
see that its laws are not infringed. The legislation of States is be¬ 
coming, in my judgment, a duplication, so to speak, of the legislation 
of Congress," because of the tendency to centralize the power here 
in Washington. It is removing the GoA^ernment farther and far¬ 
ther away from the people. If the fathers thought one Representa¬ 
tive necessary for 30,000 people, certainly by having only one Repre¬ 
sentative for the present number is removing the Government still 

farther aAvay from the people. 

Mr. Langley. Do you think that an enlargement of the member¬ 
ship of the House Avould expedite the handling of the increased 
amount of Federal business? 


36 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

Mr. Jefferis. Certainly. If to centralize here is to be the tend¬ 
ency of the country, then we ought to have more Representatives 
here to speak for the people. 

Mr. Langley. How would we have a-better chance to speak if we 
had many more? 

Mr. Jefferis. I think we have a chance to speak now. We have 
too much speaking. 

Mr. Langley. I think so, too. 

Mr. Larsen. I asked the gentleman a moment ago his position on 
the question of centralization, and he suggested that we might abol¬ 
ish the State legislative assembly. Now- 

Mr. Jefferis (interrupting). I suggested that if we were going 
to continue centralizing everything here in Washington*- 

Mr. Larsen. I should like to know the gentleman’s view. Are 
you advocating that kind of a system, or are you opposed to it ? 

Mr. Jefferis. No ; I am not advocating it; I am opposed to it. 

Mr. Larsen. Do you not think an increased membership of the 
House would rather tend toward the very thing you oppose? 

Mr. Jefferis. No; I think not. 

Mr. Larsen. You leave that impression. You leave the impres¬ 
sion witli the people that every time you increase the membership 
of the House you are better prepared to take care of the situation 
than you were before, and therefore you encourage them in central¬ 
izing the power here. Is that not true? 

Mr. Jefferis. I think you.ought to have Representatives enough 
to be thoroughly in touch with their constituents if we are going to 
do all the business here. If we are going back to the theory of 
our fathers and permit the States to regulate their own internal 
affairs, then we will not need so many here. It will right itself in 
time. We must get back to the people so that the people will have 
a place to go in their own States arid legislate on their grievances 
instead of spending a lot of money to come down here. But if we 
are going to continue here like we are, apparently centralizing things 
here, then we ought to have more Representatives here to protect the 
people’s rights. We are out of touch with the people when so far 
removed from them. 

Mr. Larsen. If we are going to continue that way, what do you 
want? 

Mr. Jefferis. Well, I want the States to have their rights; yet, 
if we are going to continue along this way, something will have to be 
done to adjust ourselves to it, and the sooner we get a larger number 
of Representatives here the sooner that adjustment will be reached. 

The Government belongs to the people; and if we are going to 
have a representative Government we ought to have plenty of Rep¬ 
resentatives here or else let the States resume their functions through 
their Representatives. 

Mr. Fairfield. My own judgment is that it is time to call a halt 
on that centralization business. 

Mr. Larsen. I do not think the Census Committee has jurisdiction 
over that subject. 

Mr. Fairfield. No ; but, inasmuch as he has introduced the subject, 
I may say in passing that we have already gone too far on matters of 
that kind. 



APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


37 


Mr. Jefferis. I think a large body is always harder to handle than 
a small body, but I think a large body will come nearer expressing the 
sentiment of the people than a small body will. It is harder to con¬ 
trol—harder to reach. And, assuming that they have at least the 
desire to truly represent the people, they are going to try to do that. 
They are closer to the people and they know the wants and the wishes 
of the people in the communities they represent, whereas if you have 
them representing great sections they necessarily could not come in 
very close touch with the views of their constituents. 

Mr. Fairfield. Do you feel that on the present basis of 435 a man 
can not adequately represent a large district and look after the inter¬ 
ests of his constituents properly? 

Mr. Jefferis. That he can not? 

Mr. Fairfield. \es. Do you feel that he can not? 

Mr. Jefferis. I think that it will keep him pretty busy, and then 
his vote will not satisfy half of them. 

Mr. Fairfield. Do you think that a man can not adequately rep¬ 
resent his constituency if we have only 435 Members of the House? 

Mr. Jefferis. There is a tendency on the part of the people to 
have referendums, and all that sort of thing, and they want to be 
closer to their government. Now, if we are going to continue here 
in Washington to centralize things, then the people ought to have 
more Representatives here if we are going to do anything. 

Mr. Langley. To put it in a more concrete form, you think you 
could more efficiently represent 50,000 people than you could 300,000? 

Mr. Jefferis Yes; I do. 

Mr. Langley. I think I could, too. 

Mr. Larsen. Do you not think that a larger House would have the 
effect of centralizing power in the committees? 

Mr. Jefferis. No; I do not. It may have the effect of centralizing 
it there in the first instance; but your committees are larger, and 
necessarily all legislation must later come before the House. 

Mr. Larsen. The largest committees of the House have from 30 
to 35 members. Does it not have the effect of allowing such com¬ 
mittees to control legislation ? 

Mr. Jefferis. Not necessarily. 

Mr. Larsen. What is your idea, in a general way, as to that? 

Mr. Jefferis. I think that is shown day after day when these mat¬ 
ters come in there by the fact that amendments are made and is- 
cussions are carried on and different viewpoints are arrived at and 
bills are changed in some way or other time and time again. 

Mr. Larsen. Representatives are constantly clamoring to be heard, 
begging for one, two, or three minutes, or as many minutes as they 
are able to get; few are able to get more than five minutes. Do you 
think it possible to discuss important matters of legislation intelli¬ 
gently in such short period of time ? 

Mr. Jefferis. Outside of arguing some constitutional matters or 
other important legislation, most of us being lawyers, we generally 
talk without much regard for time when trying to convince a jury of 
the truth of our case, right or wrong, whereas if we were to boil it 
down it could be disposed of in much less time. 

I do not speak very much; in fact, I very seldom take the floor. If 
I had an opportunity to read a lot of these bills that have been agreed 


38 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


upon in committees and that are coming before the House four or 
five days before they come before the House I could be pretty will 
informed on them, and so could the rest of the Members. Merely 
talking to put something in the Record does not appeal to me at all. 

Mr. Larsen. The fewer Members you have the fewer would be the 
number of bills introduced and the greater would be the opportunity 
to study the legislation proposed. 

Mr. Jefferif. Well, not necessarily, because they would have to go 
through committees anyhow. 

Mr. Larsen. Do you think that 300 Members would introduce as 
many bills at 51)0 ? ' 

Mr. Jefferis. They are liable to. 

In some State legislatures where they have a much smaller number 
of representatives than we have here they introduce almost as many 
bills in a session as we do here in a session. To return to my first 
premise, my position is that we should not at this time change the 
j:>resent apportionment of the House, because by doing so you are 
going to add an unnecessary burden in the way of expense to the States 
and cause turmoil in practically every congressional district in the 
country. 

Reapportionment on the basis of the 1920 census would be nothing 
less than a penalty on patriotism. When the census enumerators were 
canvassing Nebraska thousands of our young men were in Army 
camps and abroad, fighting for our country; young men who were 
citizens of Nebraska but who were registered as residing in the Army 
camps to which they were detailed. 

We of Nebraska had not great camp, and could therefore claim no 
citizens in that way. These young men have now returned and have 
resumed their peace-time vocations. If reapportionment were made on 
the basis of the 1920 census Nebraska would lose a Representative. 
Under the circumstances can this be justified? Obviously it can not. 

(Thereupon, at 11.40 o’clock a. m., the committee adjourned to meet 
a 2 o’clock p. m. of this day. 


Subcommittee of the Committee on the Census, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington. D. O., .June SO , 1921. 

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 2 o'clock p. m., 
Hon. Louis W. Fairfield presiding. 

Mr. Fairfield We are ready to proceed. Mr. Sweet, you can 
make your statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BURTON E. SWEET, REPRESENTATIVE IN 
CONGRESS FROM IOWA. 

Mr. Sweet Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, when 
the question of apportionment ame up last session it was urged as a 
reason therefor that the legislatures throughout the United States 
almost without exception would be in session during the months of 
January, February, March, and April, and that it would lessen the 
expense of the States and would not necessitate the trouble of calling 
extra sessions of the State legislatures for the purpose of redis- 



APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 39 

tricting the States if the apportionment bill were immediately passed 
by Congress. 

The bill, however, as you know, was passed by the House, but not 
by the Senate. Congress adjourned on March 4, 1921, and no legis¬ 
lation was passed in regard to reapportionment. 

Senator Harding was inaugurated President of the United States, 
and he deemed it best to call an extra session of Congress on April 
11, 1921. The extra session was called for the purpose of passing 
the deficiency appropriation bills, tariff and revenue bills, budget 
legislation, and certain legislation relative to the consolidation of the 
Government agencies for the benefit of the disabled ex-service men 
of the country. The President also referred to the maternity bill 
and the passage of the peace resolution. Nothing was said about the 
apportionment bill. The legislatures are not now in session, and in 
many States it would be necessary to have extra sessions of the legis¬ 
latures for enactment of redistricting legislation. If this legislation 
is passed now it would entail considerable trouble and inconvenience 
to many States and necessitate needless expense, as I view it. 

There is not a great demand by the Members of Congress that 
this legislation be passed at the special session of Congress. I be¬ 
lieve that I am not going too far when I say that two-thirds of the 
Members of Congress on the Kepublican side of the House are not 
in favor of doing anything with this question at this extra session. 
They do not want this question agitated in their States for months 
prior to the convening of the legislatures in regular session. They 
believe that it is unwise to force this question, when we are passing 
through the present troublesome times and when so much important 
legislation is now pending before the House and the Senate. 

The people are demanding that the legislation suggested by the 
President in his message to Congress be passed, and that when it 
is passed that Congress adjourn and go home. Heretofore appor¬ 
tionment legislation has usually been passed about two }^ears after 
the taking of the census. 

Kight in this connection I want to say that I was up to the White 
House this morning and discussed certain matters with the Presi¬ 
dent. One of the matters that came up was the question of reappor¬ 
tionment, and I said to him, “Mr. President, I do not know how 
you feel about this legislation, but it would appear to me that it 
should not be considered at this special session. It would appear to 
me that Congress should pass the legislation suggested by you in 
your message to Congress, and then adjourn and go home.” He re¬ 
plied, “ I thoroughly agree with you.” I then said that some time 
to-day I would probably appear before the Census Committee, which 
is now considering the bill for reapportionment, and the President 
said, “ You may say to the committee that I do not believe that this 
measure should be considered at the special session; that two im¬ 
portant bills at least should be passed and Congress adjourn.” I said 
to him that I would be very glad to make the statement to the com¬ 
mittee. 

Mr. Fairfield. As I understand it, Mr. Sweet, you are authorized 
by the President to speak for him as being opposed to the passage 
of a bill of this kind at this session ? 


40 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


Mr. Sweet. I want it understood that I had a conversation with 
the President, and that he stated in substance what I have stated to 
the committee here. 

Mr. Fairfield. My specific question is this: Does the committee 
understand that by the authority of the President you are expressing 
his desire that no legislation for reapportionment be passed at this 
session ? 

Mr. Sweet. I understand that to be the case. 

Mr. Larsen. You mentioned that he said two important bills ought 
to be passed. To what bills did he refer? 

Mr. Sweet. He did not name the bills, but I infer the}^ are the' 
tariff bill and the revenue bill. 

Now, then, gentlemen, I wrote a letter to the Director of the Census* 
Bureau, Mr. W. M. Steuart, and requested that he furnish certain 
data on this subject, and his statement to me is as follows [reading] : 

Date of acts appoitioning Representatives after each census from 1790 to the 
present time. 

Mr. Larsen (interrupting). One point further, while we are on the 
subject of conversation with the President. Did you understand 
from the President’s conversation that all legislation at this special 
session should relate to those two bills, and that we should enact no 
other legislation except those tivo bills ? 

Mr. Sweet. No; I did not understand it that way, but that we 
should pass such legislation as he recommended in his message and 
then adjourn the special session. 

Mr. Towner. In that connection you called his especial attention 
to this reapportionment bill, did you? 

Mr. Sweet. I called his attention to the fact that the Census Com¬ 
mittee was now holding hearings upon this bill, and that I expected 
to appear before this committee to make a statement in regard to the 
measure under consideration. 

Mr. Towner. Did you ask him then as to whether'or not he Wanted 
that matter considered at the special session, or did he voluntarily 
make the statement ? 

Mr. Sweet. He voluntarily made the statement. 

Mr. Towner. He voluntarily made the statement that he did not 
approve of its being taken up during the special session. 

Mr. Sweet. During the special session. [Reading:] 

Date of acts apportioning Representatives after each census from 1790 to the' 

present time. 


Census year. 

Date of sub¬ 
mission of 
aoportion- 
ment tables. 

Date of ap¬ 
portionment 
acts. 

Census year. 

Date of sub¬ 
mission of 
anportion- 
ment tables. 

Date of ap¬ 
portionment 
acts. 

1790. 


Apr. 14,1792 
Jan. 14,1802 
Dec. 21,1811 
Mar. 7,1822 
May 22,1832 
June 25,1812 
i July 30,1852 

1860. 


i Mar. 4,1862 
I eb. 2,1872 
Feb. 25,1882 
Feb. 7,1891 
Jan. 16,1901 
Aug. 8,1911 

1800... 


1870.... 


1810. 


1880.... 

Jan. 17,1881 
Nov. 25,1890 
Dec. —,1900 
Dec. 22,1910 
Dec. 14,1920 

1820. 


1890.... 

1&30. 


1900.... 

1840. 


1910.... 

1850. 


1920.... 





1 Date of amendatory act which determined the apportionment as finally made. 




























APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


41 


I call the attention of the committee to those dates simply to show 
that as a usual thing the act was passed about two years after the 
taking of the census. 

Mr. Fairfield. But always before the next election. 

Mr. Sweet. All of them were before the next election. 

Mr. Fairfield. They took care of the rights of the State in the 
election that succeeded? 

Mr. Sweet. That is true. 

Mr. Larsen. The last four apportionments, however, have been 
within the year? 

Mr. Sweet. The last three. 

Mr. Larsen. Do you know whether or not Congress was in session 
during the intervening period? Did you investigate that question? 

Mr. Sweet. I did not. 

Mr. Towner. It would have to be before the 1st of December of 
every year. 

Mr. Larsen. But after the completion of the census. 

Mr. Towner. The regular session, of course, would that not be? 
One of those went so late into the second year as July. In, other 
words, we would be within the precedent if we were not to pass any 
apportionment bill until July of next year? 

Mr. Sweet. That is true, and that is the reason I am calling at¬ 
tention to these dates. 

Mr. Brinson. Within one precedent ? 

Mr. Towner. Yes; we would be within one precedent. 

Mr. Siegel. You are referring to the one of 1852, are you not, 
Mr. Sweet? 

Mr. Sweet. Yes; to the one of 1852; and then it was June 25, 
1842; and the next previous was May 22, 1832; and the next pre¬ 
vious was March 7, 1822. 

Mr. Fairfield. But never was it allowed to go beyond the succeed¬ 
ing congressional election? 

Mr. Sweet. I think that is true. 

The census that was taken in 1920 is not fair to all sections of the 
country. I want to present that as a general proposition. It hap¬ 
pened that it was taken during the reconstruction period following 
the Great War. Three million and more soldiers that had been 
released were not again pursuing gainful occupations, and in many 
instances they had not returned to their former abodes. Many of 
the great plants engaged in war activities still retained men who 
had left the farms in the great Mississippi Valley to assist the Gov¬ 
ernment in the carrying on of the war. 

I believe it is safe to say that such States as Nebraska, Kansas, 
Iowa, and Indiana, if the census were taken to-day, would not lose a 
single Representative under any reasonable apportionment that 
might be made. During the last two or three years they have been 
returning to the farms and are returning now. The question of farm 
help to-day is not as important a question as it was in 1919 and 
1920. I may say that out in the Mississippi Valley to-day we have 
the greatest prospect for crops that we have ever had, and there are 
no complaints coming here that they are short on farm help, at least 
they are not so extensive as they were following the war, during the 
years 1919 and 1920. 


42 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


Mr. Rankin. The morning’s paper carries the statement that if 
men went to the country now in the wheat fields, help was so plentiful 
that they couldn’t get a job. 

Mr. Sweet. I think that is true. I do not wish to overstate it. I 
shall state that which I am conversant with only, as to the conditions 
out in those States to-day. 

Mr. Fairfield. Have you examined the changes that occurred to 
find out whether the manufacturing States under the new census made 
the gains, or the agricultural States ? 

Mr. Sweet. I am specificially referring to the States in the Mississ¬ 
ippi Valley, and, as a general proposition, the States that were in 
need of farm help, and especially in the Mississippi Valley, in 1919 
and 1920. They were short of help. The men were not there, and 
they were not there at the date of the taking of the census. 

Mr. Fairfield. California increases, Texas increases, Ohio in¬ 
creases, Pennsylvania does not change, and New York does not 
change. The agricultural States, in whose interests you are making 
this argument, really gain more than the manufacturing States. 

Mr. Sweet. My statement, of course, applies largely to the States 
in the Mississippi Valley, with which I am conversant. 

Mr. Fairfield. I see. 

Mr. Brinson. As a conclusion here you state that we ought not have 
any apportionment bill based on the last census? 

Mr. Sweet. No; my conclusion is this, that that census was not 
properly taken, and, owing to the fact that it was not properly 
taken and that it is an inequitable census, that this is not the 
time for the Congress of the United States to decrease our repre¬ 
sentation in Congress,, and take from the States in the Mississippi. 
Valley, as I view it, that did not have a proper and accurate enumera¬ 
tion of the persons in those States; and, that being the case, that 
this is not the proper time to take the stand that the number of the 
House of Representatives should be left as it is or should not be 
increased. 

Mr. Fairfield. Well, Mr. Sweet, that statement that the census is 
inequitable is based on knowledge or opinion of the conditions? 

Mr. Sweet. My statement is based on what I know of the condi¬ 
tions in the Mississippi Valley, and the fact that the census was 
taken after the Great War, when the boys had not returned to their 
former residences and were not then in those States where they are 
now and probably will remain; and that when the census was taken 
the enumeration was inequitable and should not be the basis upon 
which to decrease our representation in Congress. 

Mr. Fairfield. Have you any statistics that you can give to the 
committee as a matter of reference? 

Mr. Sweet. I haven’t any definite statistics in that regard, but I 
will say to you that it is the well-known observation of any man 
who was conversant with conditions during 1919 and 1920 in the 
Mississippi Valley. 

Mr. Larsen. Do I understand. you to mean by the expression, 
u The census was not properly taken,” simply that the conditions 
were such that an accurate accounting could not be made? 

Mr. Sweet. My contention is this, that following the Great War 
:a great many soldiers congregated in cities and other places, in 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


43 


plants and establishments, that should have been, if a proper enu¬ 
meration had been made, counted as a part of the population of 
the States of the Mississippi Valley. Turn, for instance, to the State 
of Ohio. In the State of Ohio, where they have great manufactur¬ 
ing plants, I think their representation has increased. 

Mr. Larsen. Do you know what arrangements were made for tak¬ 
ing the census of those Americans who were in the military service 
in Europe, whether or not they were enumerated by any person? 
Do you know whether the enumeration.was so made that the per¬ 
manent residence was given or whether the States received credit 
for such citizens? 

Mr. Sweet. I think the regular way to take the enumeration was 
to ascertain the man’s true residence. But a great many of these 
boys when they came out of the Army were employed in plants in 
other States, and they would answer immediately, “So far as I am 
concerned, this is my home. I formerly lived in Iowa, but, never¬ 
theless, so far as lam concerned, this is my home.” And they were 
enumerated accordingly. 

Mr. Larsen. I want to ask you about those in the military service. 
Do you know whether or not they were taken ? 

Mr. Sweet. I do not know about that; I have not made inquiries. 

Mr. Larsen. There were some 4,00(1,000 of them, and evidently 
they were enumerated while in the service. 

Mr. Sweet. Some of them were; but in 1920 the facts are that the 
Army was pretty well demobilized at that time. 

Mr. Fairfield. Yes; comparatively few r men were in the service at 
that time. 

Mr. Sweet. Yes; comparatively few v T ere in the service at that 
time. 

Mr. Newton. I would like to understand the gentleman’s position 
on this: If this census is defective, is it your position that it should 
not be used at any time as a basis for enumeration? 

Mr. Sweet. I would be glad to take that position, Mr. Nevdon, if 
1 thought it would be practicable to take the census again; but, 
really, when you ask me that question I am confronted with the 
proposition of the great expense that would be involved in retaking 
the census, even just for the purpose of obtaining the number in 
each States, without going into details in regard to occupation, and 
all that. It would be a great expense. But I do contend this, that 
as to some portions of the country it is an inequitable census, espe¬ 
cially when we are endeavoring to determine by it an apportionment 
of representation in Congress. 

Mr. Langley. If you will pardon an interruption, Mr. Sweet. 
I was delayed a moment in coming in. Do I understand the gentle¬ 
man to be attacking the integrity of the census, the accuracy of the 
census? 

Mr. Saveet. I am not attacking the integrity of the census, but I 
am attacking the proposition of reapportioning the representation 
in Congress on the basis of it, on the ground that there had not been 
a full return of the soldiers that came out of the Army back to their 
real residences. 

Mr. Larsen. The armistice was signed in November, 1918. The 
census was not taken for a period of practically 14 months there¬ 
after. 


44 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


Mr. Sweet. That is true. 

Mr. Larsen. Is it not a fact that during those 14 months the 
Army had been largely demobilized and the boys had returned to 
their homes? 

Mr. Sweet. No; they had not. I can just let any man here from 
the Mississippi Valley answer that question; they had not gone back; 
because at the present time, as I said a moment ago, we have the 
prospect for the greatest crops in the Mississippi Valley that we 
have ever had and we are not short on labor. But in i919 the boys 
had not come back. In January of 1920 they had not come back and 
we were short of labor, and wages were high in the Mississippi 
Valley during that whole period. 

Mr. Langley. And there were many thousands of soldiers who 
would not return to the farm, from which they were called into the 
service. 

Mr. Sweet. I think that is true. 

Mr. Larsen. That may be due to the fact that there is so much 
idle labor all over the country. There are three or four millions out 
of work now. 

Mr. Sweet. That is true. I am glad you suggested that, because 
that is simply evidence of the fact that the boys are now returning 
to their own homes, and if a census were taken to-day it would be an 
entirely different census from that taken in 1920. 

Mr. Larsen. Are you going to make an apportionment under the 
census, or disregard it ? 

Mr. Sweet. No. My contention, in the first place, is that those 
farm States out there, because of the conditions I have detailed, 
should not upon the present census be robbed of their representation 
in Congress; it should not be decreased. 

Mr. Larsen. The same conditions which exist two years from now 
will probably exist 10 years from now ? 

Mr. Sweet. That may be true, but we are making an apportion¬ 
ment here for 10 years, and if you make it on the wrong basis we will 
be required to continue for 10 years; but I say that the proper solu¬ 
tion of that is to leave our representation in the Mississippi Valley 
as it is at the present time and increase the number in the House to 
460 or 483 and do equity. That is all I want. 

Mr. Larsen. I would like to ask a question: How long do you pro¬ 
pose to delay ? What is your remedy ? Suppose that condition exists 
for 10 years? 

Mr. Sweet. Mr. Newton asked a similar question. I am not quite 
challenging the integrity of the census, but I am calling attention 
to the fact that there were certain conditions that existed there when 
the census was taken that made it, so far as the Mississippi Valley 
was concerned, inequitable, when you endeavor to base a reappor¬ 
tionment upon it. It is not just to' those States that are affected. 

Mr. Fairfield. Is it not true that proportionately the States in 
the Mississippi Valley will have just as much voting power in 
Congress under a membership of 435 as they would under 483 ? 

Mr. Sweet. No ; that is not true. 

Mi. Fairfield. Because if you base it at 483 on this census it is 
a proportional proposition. 

Mr. Sweet But if you put it at 435 and you take a Representative 
away from Kansas and put him into another State you have just 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


45 


doubled, so far as your proportion is concerned; but if you increase 
it to 460 the proportion is in favor of the States in the Mississippi 
Valley. 

Mr. Fairfield. I can not see that, because on the basis of 483 New 
York will gain 5, whereas she doesn’t get any now, and Pennsyl¬ 
vania will get 5. 

Mr. Sweet. If von leave it at 435 and take a Representative away 
from one State and put him into another you have only lost your 
one Representative from the State, but you have given that repre¬ 
sentation to another State, which makes a double loss for that State. 

Mr. Larsen. You are making a very clear and forceful statement, 
but have you compared the results of the last census with the census 
of 1910 ? Is it not true that the census of 1910, to which, I under¬ 
stand, you interposed no objection, discloses the same conditions 
with reference to the Mississippi Valley? 

Mr. Sweet. In 1910? 

Mr. Larsen. Yes. 

Mr. Sweet. Oh, no. 

Mr. Larsen. What States are you considering in the Mississippi 
Valley as thus affected; to what States do you refer? 

Mr. Sweet. The States of Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa are the 
States; and those are the States affected, as I view it, by this in¬ 
equitable census. 

Mr. Larsen. In 1910? 

Mr. Sweet. In 1910 there was no war and we were going along in 
the most normal way. 

Mr. Larsen. But what was the effect of the census of 1910 on 
those States you have mentioned? 

Mr. Sweet. I have not examined that. 

Mr. Larsen. My recollection is, I may be wrong, that Kansas lost 
one in 1910. 

Mr. White. No, no; gained one. 

Mr. Sweet. Iowa has never been decreased. 

Mr. Larsen. As I remember she would have lost one if they had 
not increased the membership to 435. 

Mr. Fairfield. And the increase was to take care of the very States 
that are now asking for an increase, and they are assuming now that 
the loss is due to war conditions. 

Mr. Larsen. My recollection is that the conditions in 1910 were 
exactly the same in Missouri as they are to-day. 

Mr. Saveet. I neglected to state Missouri. On the 435 basis Mis¬ 
souri will lose two. 

Mr. Larsen. Now, if that Avas due to the fact that they had gone 
to the industrial centers, why is it that the industrial States do not 
profit ? 

Mr. Saveet. They do. Ohio is practically one of them, and she has 
a great increase. California is another, with great shipbuilding 
yards and establishments. 

Mr. Larsen. Do you not consider Pennsylvania and New York in¬ 
dustrial States? 

Mr. Saveet. It is true that they are, but, nevertheless, Ohio, Cali¬ 
fornia, and other States received the greatest increase, and it was 
largely due to the fact that the business was there. 


46 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


Mr. Larsen. What about North Carolina ? What made conditions 
there ? What made them such in Texas ? 

Mr. Sweet. Well, I have not gone into that. Now, then, gentle¬ 
men, the question naturally arises, what should Congress do under 
all these circumstances? Is it to recognize these inequities that are 
apparent to every one in the taking of the census of 1920, or shall we 
arbitrarily say, regardless of the undisputed facts, we will allow 
States that are in position to take advantage of the present census 
to dominate Congress and force a reduction of representation in the 
great agricultural States in the Mississippi Valley; or will you say 
to those States, we recognize the inequities in the census taken in 
1920, and we will not reduce your representation in Congress. 

This is no time, as I view it, to say that the House of Representa¬ 
tives shall not be increased beyond 435 Members. It is a well-known 
fact at the present time that the House of Representatives is more 
expeditious in the passing of legislation than the Senate of the 
United States, composed of 96 Members. For the last six years the 
House has been continually waiting upon the Senate for the passage 
of important legislation. This has been brought forcibly to my at¬ 
tention, especially in connection with the enactment of legislation for 
the benefit of disabled ex-service men of the country. The House 
has initiated all this legislation thus far, and passed it promptly and 
without criticism from the ex-service men or the organizations that 
represent them throughout the country. This can not be said of the 
Senate, although it is composed of 96 Members. 

Mr. Langley. And yet one reason offered against an increase in 
the membership of the House is that the Members do not get a chance 
to talk. 

Mr. Sweet. That is true. I may say in answer to Mr. Langley’s 
question that I do not believe that it would make any difference 
whether the House was composed of 435 Members or 500 Members, 
in the matter of expeditiously passing legislation, because the House 
is governed by rules that are absolute, and when a bill is brought up 
before the House it is put through according to rule; and when it 
goes over to the Senate, with all due respect to the Senators, I would 
say that they usually discuss it at great length and with the courtesy 
that always comes in a smaller body. 

Mr. Larsen. Do I understand you to indicate by this statement 
that deliberation is not beneficial to legislation? 

Mr. Sweet. That is not the question involved. Then, if it is a 
question of deliberation let us cut the membership of the House 
down to 20, and there will be all the deliberation you want. And I 
heard the gentleman ask a question as to the number of bills intro¬ 
duced. Is it your purpose to cut off the number of bills? The 
House is the part of our legislative body with which the people are 
in close contact, and the people from all sections should be repre¬ 
sented. The moment you increase the- 

Mr. Larsen (interrupting). Of course, you could not cut it to the 
point you mentioned—20 Members—and give each State representa¬ 
tion. 

Mr. Sweet. I didn’t say that facetiously but for the purpose of 
emphasizing the question of deliberation to which you called my 
attention. There is no question but what we must have rules. We 




APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


47 


have rules, and those rules are absolute in the passing of legislation, 
and, being as they are, if the membership were 500 the legislation 
would be put through just as it is to-day, and everyone knows that. 

Mr. Fairfield. Suppose it were a thousand. Would that make it 
unwieldy ? 

Mr. Sweet. Well, I am not so sure. There is a happy medium. 
Let me call your attention to the fact that an examination of the 
report made by your committee at the last session of Congress on 
the apportionment bill shows that the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain has 707 members in the House of Commons, and that of 
that number England and Wales alone have 528 members in the 
House of Commons. 

Mr. Langley. And with less population than we have—consid¬ 
erably. 

Mr. Sweet. The United Kingdom has a population of a little over 
forty-five million, while we to-day have over a hundred million. 

Mr. McPherson. How many of those 707 members of the House 
of Commons can be present at one time? 

Mr. Sweet. I do not know as to that. I understand they can not 
all be present. 

Mr. McPherson. Three hundred and fifty is the greatest number 
they ever had. 

Mr. Siegel. The truth of the matter is that we only have, on an 
average, in the House of Kepresentatives, between 70 and 80 per 
cent present on even very important measures. 

Mr. Brinson. And I think you will find 90 per cent in the city 
all the time. Is it not true of bodies so large that they have under 
their control all local legislation as well as general legislation? 

Mr. Sweet. I think that is true. 

Mr. Tow t ner. That is true only in a measure. 

Mr. Brinson. Is not that true in England and France? 

Mr. Siegel. It is not true, so far as France is concerned; no. 

Mr. Towner. No; and not so far as Italy is concerned, either. 
Neither England or France have States, such as we have, but they 
have local government nevertheless. They have Provinces in France. 

Mr. Langley. In England, too. 

Mr. Towner. They have a larger measure of autonomous legisla¬ 
tion in the cities than we have. Is it not true—I will ask Mr. Sweet— 
that the individual Member of the House of Representatives is well 
known to have more people in his district than the representatives 
of any other country in the world have? 

Mr. Sweet. That is true. In Greece their apportionment of repre¬ 
sentation is one member in the lower house for 16,000. In Germany 
it is 130,000, and that is the highest of any European country. 

Mr. Langley. And do you not think, Mr. Sweet, if we had less 
talk in the House, and more voting, more action, that the body would 
be more efficient? 

Mr. Sweet. Yes; I think that is true. 

Mr. Larsen. The chairmen of committees generally have the con¬ 
trol of time, and therefore, are not up against the same proposition 
that the other man is. Is not that true ? 

Mr Sweet. Yes. to some extent that is true. I wish to make this 
observation, that under the present rules of the House practically 


48 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


every Member in it can have an opportunity to talk on almost any 
bill at least five minutes, and the House is always liberal in the ex¬ 
tension of time. In the days gone by that was not possible, and that, 
too, when the House was much smaller than it is now. ivhen it was 
composed of only 325 Members. In those days in order to get an 
opportunity to speak to the House you had to go and make your 
terms with the Speaker in order to be recognized. That is not so 
to-day. 

Mr. Larsen. Did you hear the statement Senator Burton made 
before the subcommittee. 

Mr. Sweet. No, I did not hear the Senator. 

Mr. Larsen. Did you hear the statement of Mr. Cockran, of New 
York, the other day, with reference to what prevailed in those 
periods? **• 

Mr. Sweet. Yes, in speech-making? 

Mr. Larsen. Yes. 

Mr. Sweet. That everybody had time. 

Mr. Towner. Another matter that ought to be considered in that 
regard is that we have in the House of Representatives a most liberal 
consideration of individual items that no other country in all the 
world has. We have even under our present rules and the limit 
that exists under our present rules practically the consideration of 
every matter that affects the individual Congressman, and he has 
the opportunity of expressing himself upon the individual items of 
the bills. That does not exist under the rules of any other parlia¬ 
mentary body in the world. In view of that fact is it not perfectly 
apparent that we ought to have at least approximately something 
near an opportunity of representing the people than we would have 
if we increased the Members so that individual representation could 
not be obtained? 

Mr. Sweet. In my judgment, that is true. 

Mr. Larsen. Taking up the other thought which Judge Towner 
suggested. If it is true in other parliamentary bodies that they have 
not an opportunity of expressing themselves, it makes very little 
difference whether they have a membership of a hundred or a thou¬ 
sand, because nobody has an opportunity to talk anyway. Under 
the liberal rides that we have, rules that permit men to talk, where 
they have so many men they would talk themselves to death. 

Mr. Fairfield. Mr. Sweet, some congressional districts have 
200,000 people, and some have 500,000. Now, if they were properly 
distributed, do you think that with the present clerical help and with 
the present number of Congressmen that a Congressman can not 
properly represent the people of his district, as the House now stands, 
with a membership of 435? 

Mr. Sweet. I read over your committee’s minority report to Con¬ 
gress, and I think you made that contention: but if that contention 
is true that we can make up for the service in the House by the hiring 
of clerks, then in that event we would be placing the House in the 
position that some of the bureaus are in to-day, which are adminis¬ 
tered and run by irresponsible clerks. I believe that the people of 
this country want representatives down here, and they want the per¬ 
sonal attention of the members to details rather than to hire extra 
clerks to make up for any deficiency in representation. 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


49 


Mr. McPherson. Do you believe that there is any sentiment among 
the people, the taxpayers of Missouri, Indiana, and these other States, 
for an increased membership of this House? 

Mr. Sweet. I believe that there is a well-defined sentiment in every 
one of those^ States that they do not want their representation de¬ 
creased in Congress, and that representation turned over to some 
other State in the Union. 

Mr. McPherson. Aside from that, is there any question or general 
belief that the House of Representatives failed in any respect, that 
the people consider it has failed, due to the lack of additional mem¬ 
ber ? 

Mr. Sweet. I do not think there is any such sentiment in Iowa. 

Mr. Langley. They are satisfied under the existing conditions with 
the number they now have in the House ? 

Mr. Sweet. They are in Iowa. 

Mr. Langley. They are in Kentucky. 

Mr. Rankin. Do you not believe that if this matter were left to the 
American people from the Great Lakes to the Gulf that they would 
want to leave the representation as it is without redistrieting for the 
next 10 years? 

Mr. Sweet. I think they would. 

Mr. Fairfield. You mean at 435, do you? 

Mr. Rankin. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Brinson. Do you mean that those States losing representation 
because of decreased population would be entitled to hold their pres¬ 
ent representation and that the States that are entitled to increased 
representation under the Constitution should be denied it; is that 
what you mean? 

Mr. Rankin. I will answer that in my statement. I am going to 
make a statement in a few minutes and I will be glad to go into that 
proposition. I will, say however, that my contention along that line 
is that they would not legitimately lose any representation—it is on 
paper and not on the territory of the States. And that under this 
census if this reapportionment was made it would be an unjust dis¬ 
crimination against those States to have their representation 
decreased. 

Mr. Sweet. Now, gentlemen, taking up the matter where I left off 
a moment ago, the United Kingdom has a population of a little over 
45,000,000. The same report also shows that Franee in the lower house 
has 626 members and that France has a population of approximately 
42,000,000. This report also shows that Italy in the lower house has 
a membership of 508 and that the population of Italy is something 
like 37,000,000. This same report shows that Spain in the lower house 
has 417 members, with a population of 19,000,000. This same report 
shows that Germany in 1919 in the lower house had 423 members, 
with a population of 45,000,000. 

With reference to the question asked me by Judge Towner, the 
ration of members to population in all the countries of Europe varies 
from 16,000 per member to 130,000, the least number being in Greece, 
and the largest number being in Germany. And yet the American 
Government, the greatest Republic on earth, a Government where we 
would naturally expect that the people would have the most repre- 


57581—21 - 4 




50 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


sentative government, it is shown that in 1911 the ration of members 
to population in the House of Representatives was 211,877. 

If the membership were increased in the House to 483 the ratio of 
Members to population would be 218,986, and in this connection it 
must also be remembered that by the adoption of the nineteenth 
amendment to the Constitution the women of this country were given 
the right to vote and to participate in our elections. 

Do you believe that it will be satisfactory to the women of this 
country to reduce the representation in Congress at the very time 
when they are about to take part in our elections, and in the public 
affairs and questions which now confront the country? 

The question of apportionment is one of the most serious questions 
that confronts this Congress. Let us deal with it in a broad, compre¬ 
hensive way and not allow the selfish interests of one man or set of 
men to dominate us in considering it. 

It is contended by some that there is no public demand for an in¬ 
creased membership in the House. Some contend that popular 
opinion is opposed to an} 7 increase whatsoever. I do not believe that 
there is any member of this committee that would say that the peo¬ 
ple have given this matter any particular consideration. There is 
one thing of which I am certain, and that is that if the representa¬ 
tion of a State is decreased upon the basis of the present inequitable 
census, that the people of that State, and especially agricultural 
States, will be aroused when they fully realize that the representa¬ 
tion of one State is being decreased and another increased, without 
just reason therefor. It has also been contended by some that in¬ 
creased membership means greater delay in the transaction of public’ 
business. The comparisons that I have given between the House and 
the Senate are sufficient answer to that proposition, and ever} 7 Mem¬ 
ber who has been in Congress for a number of terms knows that an 
increase in the membership of 25 or 50 Members under the workings 
of the rules of the House of Representatives would not delay the 
passage of legislation in the least. 

Mr. Towner. Let me call your attention to this further fact. I do 
not know, but perhaps you may state it later on. As we have in¬ 
creased the membership of the House from the foundation of the 
Government to the present time, we have also increased the relative 
efficiency of the House. Instead of an increase of membership and 
decrease of efficiency of the House, it has always been very much 
increased and in very much larger proportion than the increase of 
membership. 

Mr. Sweet. I think that is true. The House of Representatives is 
supposed to be in close touch with the people. A reduction of 
Representatives means a less number of contacts with the masses of 
this country, whose opinions are supposed to be reflected by the mem¬ 
bership of the Lower House. Some contend that the reduction of 
representation of a State is not without precedent. Eighteen States 
have heretofore had their representation reduced by various appor¬ 
tionment acts. In 1840 the membership of the House was reduced, 
but no political party since that day has had the temerity to try it, 
and even at the last session of Congress they did not endeavor to 
reduce the membership, but left it where it was, at 435, permitting 
some of the States to take advantage of the inequitable census which 
was taken in 1920. 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


51 


I have just a little more to say on this question of clerks. It has 
been asserted by some that the contention that the duties of Members 
have materially increased during the past 10 years is not a convincing 
argument in favor of an enlarged membership. Additional clerks, 
when necessary, will undoubtedly care for any increase in the work 
required of Members. 

In regard to this proposition I will say that to my mind it is an 
unusual contention. The logical conclusion to be drawn therefrom 
is that the whole work of Congress might be done by clerks. I 
realize that there are. many responsibilities and duties imposed upon 
Congressmen which in a measure are incompatible with the enact¬ 
ment of legislation, but it appears to me that the argument that 
additional clerks will undoubtedly care for any increase in the work 
required of Members does not comport with statesmanship and the 
proper handling of the people’s business. The work performed in 
some of our bureaus to-day by irresponsible clerks is to my mind a 
conclusive argument against anv such assertion. 

However, if it is placed at 435 Members, 12 States by one fell 
sweep will be reduced in their representation and to their detriment 
and best interests. In other words, in just one apportionment act we 
propose to reduce two-thirds as many States in their representation 
in Congress as has taken place in the whole history of our Govern¬ 
ment. 

Mr. Fairfield. Well, I judge from your argument that we made a 
mistake when we increased the clerk hire from $1,500 to $3,680 a 
year. 

Mr. Sweet. I don’t contend that, Mr. Chairman, for this reasan: 
That the increase in clerk hire grew out of the fact largely of the 
unusual burdens placed upon Congressmen as the result of the World 
War. Every man knows that since the World War the office work of 
a Congressman has increased, and that in order to accomplish that 
under the present membership of the House it was necessary to have 
additional clerks. 

Mr. Fairfield. Well, if we increased the membership of the House 
could we get along with a fewer number of clerks? 

Mr. Sweet. To be very frank with you, within a few years after 
this war, with an increased membership in the House, I think that we 
could reasonably decrease our clerk hire and the number of clerks. 

Mr. Larsen. Am I to understand from your statement that you 
think the membership of Congress is equipped with an inefficient 
corps of clerks ? The gentleman repeated that two or three times, 
and I would like to know what he meant by it. Speaking for myself, 
I have always had efficiency in my office, and I can not see any reason 
why any other Member can not get efficient help. He is allowed a 
sufficient salary for the purpose. 

Mr. Sweet. 'The gentleman very well knows that I have made no 
such assertion, and I infer that he has got very efficient help in his 
office; in fact, I would be willing to say that he has by his own state¬ 
ment. But I want to say to you that the more clerks we have the 
further the business gets from us as Representatives, and eventually 
we will get into the position that they did m some of the bureaus ot 

this Government. . . , , , 

Mr. Langley. Yes: and they sign their names with rubber stamps 

in many instances. 




52 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


Mr. Sweet. Certainly. 

Mr. Larsen. Speaking for myself, I usually sign every letter that 
goes out of my office. 

Mr. Langley. So do I. 

Mr. Sweet. That is what he ought to do. And as this Nation 
grows that means that we will have some day more than 435 Repre¬ 
sentatives, and if we do not have more than 435, then every Member 
of Congress will not be doing as you are efficiently doing to-day— 
signing every letter that goes out. 

Mr. Langley. And reading it before he signs it. 

Mr. Rankin. Is it possible for Congressmen to get so efficient 
that they can get some results by going to the heads of department's 
and the heads of bureaus and discussing matters that come within the 
province of a Congressman’s duties? 

Mr. Sweet. I do not think he could. He can not because of the 
peculiar questions that come before Congressmen for consideration. 

Mr. Fairfield. If anybody writes in wanting a certain copy of a 
farm bulletin, do you think the Congressman should read that letter 
before he permits his clerk to write to the department and have that 
bulletin sent out immediately? 

Mr. Sweet. Well, I can only say, so far as I am concerned, that I 
sign all my letters, but, on the other hand, I think there are many 
clerks in the offices of Congressmen that can and do that routine 
work Avithout reference to the Congressman; and I think they can 
do it practically as Avell as the Congressman. 

Mr. Fairfield. Yes; and this additional clerk hire is to relieA^e the 
Congressman from the necessity of doing those things that are 
merely routine. 

Mr. Saaeet. Yes. 

Mr. Fairfield. And leave him at liberty to take up matters that 
demand his personal attention. 

Mr. Larsen. Sometimes it can be done o\ 7 er the phone. 

Mr. Sweet. I have very little more to present, Mr. Chairman. It 
appears to me that the proper way to approach establishing a defi¬ 
nite number for the House of RepresentatAes is through a consti¬ 
tutional amendment and not by legislative enactment. This is a 
matter that all States should pass upon when we arrive at a time 
for determining a definite number for the membership of the House. 

When the people of this country fully understand that the census 
that Avas taken in 1920 is inequitable and unjust to the agricultural 
States of this country I am sure that they will not approve a reduc¬ 
tion in their representation in the Halls of Congress. 

That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen. I thank 
you. 

Mr. Brinson. Just a moment, Mr. SAveet. Did you miss an oppor- 
tunitv there to state what you thought Avould be the proper mem¬ 
bership ? 

Mr. Sweet. No; I am not prepared to say just Avhen the House 
would be too large or Avhen the House would be too small. That, 
I think, is a matter that will eventually Avork out by actual ex¬ 
perience. I do not think that any man can say that the House is 
too large or can honestly say that it is too small. 

Mr. Brinson. I will ask you this: What is your recommendation? 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


53 


Mr. Sweet. My judgment is this: The census was taken shortly 
after the great war. As to all parts of the country it is an inequi¬ 
table census. Now, then, for the next 10 years it seems to me that 
it would be equitable not to deprive any State of its representation, 
but that we should compromise upon some number—460 or 483. In 
fact, it is our duty, as I view it, to compromise upon some such num¬ 
ber. Then in that event I think it will be for the best interests of the 
country, and it will not disturb business, and when this period has 
passed and another census is taken in 1930 we can again go over this 
whole question. I am not advocating that a new census be taken or 
that the census taken should actually be condemned as inaccurate, 
but I say that, taking all matter into consideration, that it is an 
inequitable census upon which to base representation in Congress. 

Mr. Brinson. Your suggestion is that the size of the membership 
should be 483 or that it be compromised at 460 ? 

Mr. Sweet. Yes. 

Mr. Brinson. But that it should be based on this census? 

Mr. Sweet. Yes. I am looking at it in a broad way. I am not 
trying to be technical or advocating that another census be taken or 
that the Government ought to be put to the expense of taking another 
census. I say to you as judicial men that we ought to look at this 
proposition in a broad way with respect to the best interests of all 
the county and all the people. 

Mr. Brinson. If you should put the number at 460, how do you 
think the folks of Maine, and I believe the other State is Missouri, 
would feel—that they were being made the victims of inefficient 
census takers ? 

Mr. Sweet. Yes; now I will say, so far as Missouri is concerned— 
and I have talked with some of them—they say they would be satis¬ 
fied with 460. Some of Missouri’s Representatives say that. I do 
not know about all of them. Maine would not like to lose any of 
its Representatives. If I had my way about it, I would do just 
exactly as this committee did at the last session of Congress and 
increase it to 483, taking into consideration the inequities, as I view 
it, of the present census. 

Mr. Brinson. If you should determine on 483, how would you 
justify that action, in view of what you say about the unfairness and 
inequity of the census ? 

Mr. Sweet. We are doing the best we can with this census without 
disturbing the business of the country, without disturbing the various 
districts. 

Mr. Brinson. At the same time, if you do that, you are legislating 
on the basis of these inequities of which you are complaining. 

Mr. Sweet. Well, not neccessarily, because we are taking the sit¬ 
uation and doing the best we can with it. 

Mr. Langley. Not depriving anybody of representation because 
of the abnormal conditions existing following the war. 

Mr. Fairfield. Is it not true, whether we apportion on the basis 
of 435 or 483, that each State will have the same relative voting 
power under either number? You talk about depriving a State of 
representation. It would have just as much power, just as much 
representative power, on 435 as it would have on 483. 

Mr. 'Sweet. I think, Mr. Chairman, if you go into the mathe¬ 
matics of it, you will find the proportion different, because of the 



54 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


fact that you rob one State of representation and put it into another 
State. 

Mr. Langley. Of course, it must be assumed that we are all 
actuated by unselfish and patriotic motives. We are simply trying 
to figure out a solution the best we can. 

Mr. Rankin. Pennsylvania now has 37 Representatives. In Mis¬ 
sissippi we have 7. That is five times as many as we have and two 
over. But if it were increased to 483, Pennsylvania would have 40 
and we would have 8. That would be two more than five times as 
many; but the proportion would not be as great. 

Mr. Sweet. The proportion is not as great, figuring it out. The 
difference in numbers is very small, but the proportion is quite 
different. 

Mr. Rankin. But when it comes to the people he Represents it 
would make a vast difference in the number of people depending 
upon one Congressman for their representation here. 

Mr. Towner. Let me make this statement, if I may, with regard 
to the limit, the possible limit of representation in this country: I 
think that it is fair to assume that the people of this country expect 
an increase of representation with the increase of population. They 
have always recognized increasing representation as a general rule, 
with slight exception. But there will come a time, of course, when 
we can not increase the representation correlative with the increase of 
population. When that time comes doubtless we will pass a con¬ 
stitutional amendment to prohibit any further increase, and that 
limit will be reached by the general expression of the people with 
regard to that matter. I would support an increase to 483, or I 
would support 460, but to increase it even to 483 would be no more 
than we have done for the last 40 or 50 years, increasing the repre¬ 
sentation approximately with the increase of population. 

Now, it is unfortunate that the question comes at a time when we 
have a census that is not a fair census, as ’everybody must admit, but 
as Mr. Sweet says, we can not help that. The best we can do is to 
try to do the best we can under the circumstances. But, of course, if 
we could, if we could leave it as it is, if we were justified in not 
making any change, leaving the congressional districts as they are, 
leaving the number as they are, 435, as at present, I think the people 
of the United States would be better satisfied than with anything 
else. I am quite satisfied that they would not want to change the 
existing congressional districts. It is not only the interest of Con¬ 
gressmen that is to be considered. Of course, the Congressman has 
his district, he is acquainted with it, he knows the people in it, he has 
established personal relations almost with every man in his district; 
and it is a great deal to his advantage personally to have the same 
congressional district in the future 10 years that he has in the past, 
but that is not all. In the first place he can do his work much more 
efficiently than he could by having his congressional district in¬ 
creased or changed because he will have to establish new relations, 
and he can not do his work as efficiently, but that is not the only 
thing. When you come to consider the interests of the people them¬ 
selves they can depend upon, they can rely upon, they can more 
easily, quickly, and with more confidence appeal to the man whom 
they know than they can to the man they do not know. 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


55 


So I am very well satisfied that if you could really determine the 
question as to whether or not they would like to have the congressional 
districts of the United States changed by a vote of the people, if 
the vote could be obtained, it would be overwhelmingly against 
changing. Congressional districts establish a kind of community 
of interest, they establish a kind of community activity. Each party 
has its organization based upon congressional districts, and it makes 
it easy for a political party, and makes it better and more efficient 
for every one, if the districts were to be allowed to continue to exist 
as they now are. 

Mr. Fairfield. Now, then, I suppose Mr. Strong is next. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES G. STRONG, REPRESENTATIVE IN 
CONGRESS FROM KANSAS. 

Mr. Strong. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
appear before you to protest against any legislation on apportion¬ 
ment that will take from Kansas a Representative based upon a 
census that I believe was unfair, and wish to indorse what Mr. Sweet 
has said as to the census being taken after the war, when the popula¬ 
tion had temporarily shifted from the interior and agricultural 
States to the industrial centers and the seaboard States. I think a 
reapportionment based on a census taken at such a time does a wrong 
to these States that are to so lose representation. It has been dis¬ 
cussed here as to whether or not the census was unfair. I can say 
that in Kansas we found that the census taken by the enumerators 
just after the war showed a loss of population, but now that loss of 
population is coming back. The best illustration I can bring to this 
committee is this—two years ago, and a year ago, Kansas was asking 
the country to send her laborers to help harvest her crops, and a year 
ago I went before the Railroad Administration in response to an ap¬ 
peal from Kansas to see if they would not grant free transportation 
to men who wanted to go out and help harvest the crops, because Kan¬ 
sas was then short of men to work in her fields. To-day we are 
harvesting one of the largest wheat crops, it has been estimated, that 
Kansas has ever produced; and because the people that left there 
during the war have returned, Kansas does not need any help from 
the outside to harvest her enormous wheat crop, and to-day she is 
advertising throughout the country for people not to come there, 
showing that the people that left Kansas for the industrial centers 
during the war have returned. 

Noav, to pass an apportionment bill based on a census taken when 
our boys were away seems to me to be very unfair. The question of 
representation is very serious to the smaller populated States. For 
instance, Kansas has but eight Representatives. Everyone knows 
that the real business of Congressmen is done in committees, where 
bills are rewritten and legislation formed, and until a State has a 
delegation large enough to be represented on the important commit¬ 
tees of the House it does not have that representation it needs. 

Mr. Brinson. Who is chairman of the Rules Committee? 

Mr. Strong. Mr. Campbell. He has been here 20 years. Suppose 
in the redistrictin^ of Kansas as a result of a reapportionment Mr. 
Campbell should be defeated. It would be a great loss to the State 




56 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

of Kansas. Mr. Anthony is an important Member of the Appropria¬ 
tions Committee; his loss to Kansas would be serious. 

Mr. Larsen. How many Members do you think a State ought to 
have to be properly represented? 

Mr. Strong. Well, I think a State ought to have enough Members 
to be represented on important committees. 

Mr. Larsen. How many Members is that? You say eight is not 
enough. How many would it take to be enough ? 

Mr. Strong. Well, I do not care to say. But I do know this, when 
3 'OU take a Member from Kansas and give that representation to the 
State of New York, that now has two Members on all the important; 
committees, based on, a census taken after the war, when the popu¬ 
lation from our State shifted to New York, it is unfair. 

Mr. Larsen. I want to follow your statement to its* conclusion. 
About how many Members do you think a State ought to have ? 

Mr. Strong. I do not say, but it ought to be represented on the 
important committees. 

Mr. Larsen. You say it ought to have more than eight; how many 
States of the 48 have less than eight? 

Mr. Strong. I am not trying to get into an argument with the 
gentleman. I am saying that it is unfair to take from a State that 
does not have enough Representatives to serve on all important com¬ 
mittees, based on a census taken after the war, which shifted the 
population to industrial and seaboard States, and give those Repre¬ 
sentatives to some other State that does not need them. As a Rep¬ 
resentative from Kansas, I am protesting against that. 

Mr. Larsen. Under the logic of your argument, would it not be 
true that no apportionment would be correct unless it gave every 
State in the Union, at least eight Representatives? 

Mr. Strong. No; that is not the argument I am trying to make.. 
The gentleman is trying to inject his own argument into the matter. 

Mr. Fairfield. For the State of Wyoming there is only one Rep¬ 
resentative, and he seems to be exerting considerable power in. the 
House. 

Mr. Strong. Certainly. 

Mr. Fairfield. So that the size of the delegation would not be a* 
determining factor. 

Mr. Strong. Well, Wyoming, has had the same Representative 
here for 15 or 20 years, and we all know what continuous service in 
the House means.' 

Mr. Larsen. Do you not think there has been a time when Maine* 
exerted perhaps more influence than any other State in the Union? 

Mr. Strong. That may be true. 

Mr. Larsen. And never had as many Representatives as many 
others. 

Mr. Strong. There may be a great many exceptions, but that does 
not alter the fact that a State’s interests are best protected by repre¬ 
sentation on the important committees, and Kansas objects to having* 
its representation cut down upon the basis of the last census 1 —a cen¬ 
sus taken after the war had caused a shift temporarily of our popula¬ 
tion to the industrial and coast States. The people have been and are 
now coming back to Kansas. 

Mr. Fairfield. In line with that point: Did not the same condition 
obtain between the years 1900 and 1910? Was not the plea made at 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


57 


that time that it would be doing a wrong to the agricultural States of 
Iowa, Indiana, and Kansas if they did not increase the size of the 
House at that time ? 

Mr. Strong. I can not answer that question. I was not in Con¬ 
gress at that time, as you gentlemen know. I simply feel that this 
last census does not truly represent a fair status of the present popu¬ 
lation of the agricultural States, because the people who left there to 
work in the factories, shipyards, etc., during the war are noAV return¬ 
ing. The factories are closing down and those men are coming back 
to the agricultural States. 

Another reason why this reapportionment legislation should not 
be taken up at this time is that it will necessarily force the various 
State legislatures to be called into special session, and it seems to me 
that that would be an unnecessary expense to put upon the States. 

Now, an argument made here "to the effect that the House should 
not be enlarged because of the expense to the people, and it seems 
to me to be the poorest that has ever been advanced against a 
larger House. Only 1.19 per cent of all the money that this Govern¬ 
ment is spending is spent for its executive, legislative, and judicial 
branches. Think of saying that in a people’s Government, which has 
been the dream of civilization for thousands of years, that the people 
can not afford to pay the expense of proper representation when out of 
the thousands of millions spent annually less than 1 per cent is used to 
pay the total expense of Congress. That seems to me to be a very 
poor way to try to make a saving for the people. I think all the 
people would be both willing and glad to pay the expense of in¬ 
creased representation in Congress, for there never was a time when 
they needed them more than now. In my own case, I know that to 
represent 190,000 people has kept me extremely busy during the two 
years I have been here. There have been more than 3,000 cases from 
soldiers of the World War and their families that had to be attended 
to in my office, in addition to all the pension claims for Civil War 
soldiers and their widows, compensation claims, patent claims, re¬ 
quests for cars from the Railroad Administration, extension of cred¬ 
its to cattle men, and such other business as has come as the out¬ 
growth of the war, besides the usual work in the committees and in 
the House for legislation of interest to Kansas and the Nation. 

Now, they propose to take this burden that has been on eight Kan¬ 
sas Congressmen and put it on seven, and that will necessarily reduce 
the service that will be rendered to the people of Kansas, and the 
Congressman that Kansas will lose will go to a State that does not 
so need them, because it already has a delegation large enough to 
have Members serve on all the important committees. I do not think 
that argument of keeping the House small in membership because of 
the expense is a proper argument. 

I do notsee anything in the argument that the House is too large to 
be a “ workable body.” Whenever the interests of the people demand 
legislation so that a majority of the Members favor it, the leaders can 
put it through the House in 24 hours if necessary, and I think there 
is always ample opportunity given the Members to speak on legisla¬ 
tion before the House. I have never found it very hard to speak on 
anything that was before the House. The fact of the matter is, I 
believe, that a great deal more talking is indulged in by Congress 



58 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


than is necessary. And I think that is true of the other body. The 
real work that is done in Congress is done right here in committees 
like this, in framing legislation, and we all have the opportunity to 
go before any committee of Congress in the interest of any bill of 
importance to our constituents. And when a bill is reported out 
from the committees to the House I have always found that the rules 
of the House made it possible for it to be acted upon as quickly as 
the leaders want it to be acted upon. A large House when backed by 
a demand of the people may force the leaders to act. A large House 
is in the interest of the people. 

As a Representative of Kansas, I feel that the last census has been 
unfair to our State and that this reapportionment should not there¬ 
fore be brought up at this time. The people that left Kansas tem¬ 
porarily as a result of war conditions are returning, and if a census 
were to be taken there now our population would at least be sufficient 
to prevent the State losing a Representative. I feel also that an 
apportionment bill at this session of Congress is going to hamper 
the legislation that we were called together to consider. We were 
called together in special session by the President to pass certain 
specific legislation. This agitation for reapportionment is going to 
cause much friction and interfere with important matters that we 
were called together to legislate upon. I was with Mr. Sweet and 
Senator Curtis this morning at the interview with the President, 
when he said, as Mr. Sweet has told you, that he thought this legisla¬ 
tion for reapportionment should not be considered at this special 
session. Now, I hope earnestly that this committee will not at this 
time bring out a bill that will throw the House into turmoil over 
reapportionment at this session of Congress; but if it is thought ad¬ 
visable to bring out such a bill I hope the committee will bring out 
one that will enable the States to retain their membership in this 
House, as I feel that it would be a great injustice to the States to 
force them to cut down -their representation upon the basis of the 
last census, which was unfair to the agricultural States due to the 
war conditions. 

Mr. Brinson. Would it not be just as unfair to those States which 
have lost population by this census to apportion on the basis of 483 
as it would be to apportion on the basis of 435 ? 

Mr. Strong. Well, I do not think it would be as unfair. 

Mr. Brinson. Why not? 

Mr. Strong. Because it would-keep them from losing their Repre¬ 
sentatives and would enable such States whose Members occupy 
places on important committees to retain their places on those com¬ 
mittees. It would be a loss to the State of Kansas if it lost any of 
its representation on the committees now. 

Mr. Brinson. Do you mean if they would lose some particular 
Representative ? 

Mr. Strong. No; if they lost any of their representation in this 
House. 

Mr. Brinson. But nothing more than their representation ? 

Mr. Strong. I think so. If Kansas lost the representation it now 
has on the Agricultural Committee, it would be a great loss to 
Kansas. Suppose it lost its representation on the Rules Committee 
or its representation on the Military Affairs Committee and other 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


59 


committees of the House, it would be a serious loss to the State. On 
the Banking and Currency Committee, one of the committees I now 
serve on, there is not a man on that committee west of the Missis- 
sl PPj 'Valley, not one, ricfr are any of the great agricultural States 
of Newbraska, the Dakotas, Minnesota, Iowa, or Oklahoma so rep¬ 
resented, and yet New York has tAvo members and Pennsylvania has 
two members. Agriculture needs representation where financial 
legislation is formed. 

Mr. Brinson. But how would Kansas lose relatively in the 
strength of its representation in the House if the membership is 435 
any more than if the membership were increased to 483, if you are 
going to use the same census as the basis of the apportionment ? 

Mr. Strong. Well, I do think it loses relatively, but if the State 
loses a Representative it would lose some Member now serving on an 
important committee of the Plouse. It would lose its representa¬ 
tion on that committee. Take the other States that would gain, 
their representation on committees is such that they do not need 
further representation on those committees. For instance, the State 
of New I ork does not need two Members on every important com¬ 
mittee, yet its delegation is large enough to have two now. So is 
Pennsylvania, and so is Ohio. 

Mr. Siegel. Speaking of New York, you will have to bear in mind 
that the State has over 11 per cent of the entire population of the 
country, and that in truth and in fact the State is to-day paying 
from 38 to 40 per cent of all the taxes of the country; that, the bal¬ 
ance, as we call it, is shown in the Senate when 11 Southern States 
having a population of about only 2,300,000 have 22 Senators in the 
Senate of the United States, while the great State of New York has 
only 2. You will therefore readily see that that line of argument 
does not help us very much. 

Mr. Strong. The only point I want to make is that if the State of 
Kansas loses any of its Representatives on committees it stands a 
loss that is serious to its interests, while a State that already has a 
large delegation in Congress does not really need to have two Repre¬ 
sentatives on the committees. 

Mr. Fairfield. Some other State might have a man on the Bank¬ 
ing Committee, say California, for example. It would simply mean 
that California would gain and that Kansas would lose. 

Mr. Strong. Yes; an agricultural State would lose. And if a re- 
apportionment. is had now, based on the last census and the House is 
kept to 435, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, 
Missouri, and Mississippi, all agricultural States, will lose repre¬ 
sentation in Congress, and it is against such an apportionment that 
I protest. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HAYS B. WHITE, REPRESENTATIVE IN 
CONGRESS FROM KANSAS. 

Mr. White. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I do 
not want to excite too much belligerency, if I may use such a liberal 
term. I am naturally bashful and without as much experience as 
many other Members of Congress. I am in favor of increasing the 
membership of the House, unqualifiedly. I shall not discuss the 




60 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


equity or inequity of the last census. I hold to the view, in the par¬ 
ticular of its being inequitable, expressed by Mr. Sweet and Mr. 
Strong, for the reasons stated, but I recognize the futility of any 
attempt to get another census. As I see it,’ for fundamental reasons, 
it is proper and right and highly desirable to increase the member¬ 
ship of the House, and I am in favor of a membership that will not 
lose a single Member to any State in the Union, notwithstanding that 
the same relative inequity might exist, the same disparity on account 
of the census. But let that pass. We must accept this census, as 
I take it. 

I agree with the gentleman that the Constitution is not mandatory 
as to reapportionment, but shall not argue that. The rule has been 
followed, the interpretation has been, I take it, in the minds of legis¬ 
lators that a reapportionment would be made, and it has been made. 

Mr. Fairfield. Mr. White, you, of course, recognize that it is a 
constitutional privilege, at least, to reapportion in each 10-year 
period ? 

Mr. White. Well, it must have been so interpreted in the minds of 
the legislators to make an apportionment, but it is not mandatory, so¬ 
ws will leave the subject. 

Mr. Fairfield. I should like to ask you a question. It has been 
customary to make the reapportionment at 10-year periods. Do you 
think under the Constitution we could with propriety make it at 
12-year periods? 

Mr. White. Well, no; that has not been the rule. I merely call 
attention to the fact that it started that way and it kept going that 
way. That is not a matter that is vital to this argument. As you 
may think my statements are entitled to your consideration, Mr. 
Chairman, I want to discuss some of the fundamental questions in¬ 
volved. I am not a lawyer and have not been accused of it. 

Through my life, in which I have been a most assiduous student of 
the nations of the world, beginning their study when I was a boy 
without the opportunities for a scholastic training, I devoted all the 
time I could spare to reading the histories of nations. I have spent 
little time reading any kind of frivolous literature. I have found that 
the most fascinating and, as I think, the most important study that 
has engaged my mind, from the viewpoint of questions of public 
policy, or as my notion might have to do with consideration of ques¬ 
tions of public policy, has been the question of constitutional Gov¬ 
ernment. And you gentlemen, who have been more assiduous students 
than myself, with better and broader opportunities, I believe, will 
agree that the progress of society has been the most slow and toilsome 
and tedious and painful of any progress that has been made in any 
line of human activity. And I submit, as I think you w r ill agree, 
that this Government, this great Republic, furnishes the first success¬ 
ful experiment in the line of full constitutional representative Gov¬ 
ernment. 

Under the Constitution in the beginning of our history as small 
subdivision, Mr. Chairman, as 30,000, was credited with a Repre- 
sentatve in Congress, and it was not demonstrated that there were 
too many; and so I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the more numerous 
branch of our Government is not now too numerous. I contend that 
this House is not unwieldy, that it is not inefficient, and that it does 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


61 


function. I deny the statements to the contrary, and those are some 
of the arguments the gentlemen presented. It may be more difficult 
of manipulation, but it functions and functions efficiently. Mr. 
Chairman and gentlemen of this subcommittee, where is the high 
leadership of this House recruited from if not from the new Mem¬ 
bers from time to time. Why, as one of our great poets has said: 

There shall come a mightier beast, 

There shall be a darker day. 

When the stars from Heaven downcast 
Like leaves shall be swept away. 

How or when this may come to pass I do not know, nor does any 
man, but we do know, as that same poet said in the same connection: 

The leaves are falling, falling 
Solemnly and slow. 

M ithin the past few months two great national figures—Clark of 
Missouri and Mason of Illinois—have left us to return no more. 

The great men of experience in legislation who have left the im¬ 
press of their genius upon the laws of this country and upon this 
civilization learned their lessons in Congress and their places must 
be filled and the lessons of legislation must be learned by the most 
laborious application, and through years of experience; gentlemen of 
the committee, this House functions. It is efficient. 

Quoting again in substance from that great leader on the minority 
side. Champ Clark, I heard him say that this is the most economic 
legislative body in the world. In going back to my statement of a 
few moments ago, this is the greatest experimental, the most inex¬ 
pensive specimen of free government the world has ever had. The 
Constitution is the repository of our rights and liberties. The House 
of Representatives is their most able and consistent expositor, and I 
believe, always has been. And I say to you gentlemen that the argu¬ 
ment for economy which I have heard in my attendance on the hear¬ 
ings, and which I hear everywhere in the House, is, to me, not to 
use too strong a term or to speak offensively, puerile, weak, and 
childish. Suppose we spent a half million or more, say a million 
dollars a year more on the representative branch of the Government, 
still when you talk about economy you are straining at a gnat and, I 
think, swallowing a camel. 

Mr. Fairfield. That is only an assumption, of course; but if extra 
Congressmen are really not needed you would not create any offices 
just for the sake of enlarging the membership of the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives? 

Mr. White. I believe most conscientiously that they are needed. I 
do not believe that this Congress would be awkward or cumbersome 
if we had a thousand representatives. If you should ask me, Mr. 
Chairman, what was the greatest lesson I ever learned from history, 
the greatest danger which confronts society always, as far back as 
history has been written, and the most insidious danger that lurks 
for free government, I would answer in one short sentence—is the abuse 
of power. There is your danger. But you can not have that danger 
when you have frequent elections and a large legislative body. As an 
example of the fact, frequently within the experience of this Sixty- 
sixth Congress and the first session of the Sixty-seventh Congress, 
Members of Congress on both sides of the House have taken the bit in 




62 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


their teeth and have disagreed with the reports of the strongest com¬ 
mittees in this House, and I commend them for it. Gentlemen, this is 
a dangerous, and, it may be, a fatal step. If I were a Member of the 
minority in this House and were not a leader of that minority I 
would be bold enough to usurp the prerogatives of leadership if it 
were necessary, and I would oppose the restriction of representation 
in this country, in this free Republic. 

Gentlemen, the American House of Representatives to-day is the 
bulwark of the people’s liberties. Your constituents are close to you 
and you are close to them, not only through patriotic considerations, 
but through selfish interest, which is the strongest element in human¬ 
ity. Every man knows it—self-interest. Gentlemen, it was not the 
Convention of Five Hundred that overthrew the French, constitution 
and delivered that unhappy country to the rule of the monarchy for 
31 years; it was the directory* a body composed of nine men, as I recall 
from my reading. As the best safeguard for that I am in favor of 
485. I am in favor of a membership that will protect every section. 
What is a million dollars? Do the gentlemen believe that a smaller 
House would give us better constructive legislation? The danger is> 
gentlemen, and always has been, that it would give us more successful 
manipulation. No man can manipulate this House of Representa¬ 
tives. This House is functioning. Let me say to you that the leaders 
on the Republican side and the leaders on the Democratic side—I am 
going to say to you on my own responsibility—quoting the language 
of Prince Hal, “ No man keeps the roadway of every other man's 
thought better than thy thought.” And so, too, the leaders on the 
Republican side and the leaders on the Democratic side will be very 
careful every day and all the time to know what legislation the 
House of Representatives will justify. The gentleman has said in 
the discussion of this matter in the House that it will only add more 
useless Representatives. 

Well, gentlemen, I would not say that of this House of Repre¬ 
sentatives. I have been a Member of this body for but one term 
preceding this, but I have kept as close tab on the American Con¬ 
gress, I expect, as any man with my opportunities in this country, 
and I say to you that a man has got to have quality to get here. Mr. 
Cockran paid the House the great compliment the other day that it 
had improved in quality, that it had advanced, since he served in 
this House something like 20 or 25 years ago. Now, gentlemen, I 
will leave this subject—you have been mighty fine and have not inter¬ 
rupted me—but I will say to you that it is a dangerous and fatal 
proposition to restrict the representation of the country in Congress. 

Mr. Langley. You said you were in favor of 485. Were you count¬ 
ing the 483 that has been proposed and adding 2 for the District of 
Columbia ? 

Mr. White. Whatever number will protect every State. Now, gen¬ 
tlemen, we have a Constitution and it has limitations. There is no 
law, there is no wisdom that can w r rite a law that will bear equally 
upon every locality. You can not do that any more than you can 
equalize the quality of mentality of the minds of men nor their power 
to achieve. It is beyond the wisdom of Congress to do that; but I 
think we can best approximate justice as between the States and best 
keep in mind the spirit of our Constitution and of our Government 


APPORTIONMENT OP REPRESENTATIVES. 63 

by keeping the membership of this House up to a high number, and 
this House will function. 

One word more. There is to-day a better understanding of the 
vital issues that confront the American Republic in the minds of 
the people, I venture to say much better, than there was in the days 
of the beginnings of the Republic. The issues are made up, the 
people read, and they function when they cast their ballot. The tasks 
of the Congressman are more arduous than they were 50 years ago, 
or within the period of my recollection. 

One more point, gentlemen. A Congressman wants to keep close 
to his constituency. I expect that a dozen men address their Con¬ 
gressman by letter now, compared with one 40 or 50 years ago. I 
presume that it is not an exaggeration to make that assertion. I 
take it that every Congressman looks personally after every letter 
that he receives from a former service man, and that he makes a per¬ 
sonal effort to take the very best care he can of that legislation which 
the war has brought on. No man leaves that to his clerk, however 
well he may be able to attend to it, or however efficient he may be. 
At least I do not, and I take it that no man does. I dictate those let¬ 
ters, and I go into the information furnished. I think they are en¬ 
titled to that consideration in every instance. When we started out 
under the Constitution a Representative was apportioned to every 
30,000 of population. Now they have come up to 239,000, and I say 
to you, we can do nothing more wise, more politic, or more patriotic, 
in my judgment, than raise the number so that it will protect every 
State. Kansas is going to lose a Congressman, and it might be in 
the minds of some Members that I am arguing from the standpoint 
of self interest. Now, it would be fair for you to ask me any question, 
if you wish to do so. 

Mr. Fairfield. I was listening to your argument, which has been 
most ably presented. 

Mr. White. Suppose I will admit that I am somewhat ambitious, 
and I am ambitious. I think I personally would not be in any danger 
because of that loss, but I wonder if the Representatives of the States 
of Ohio and California are not probably as selfish, and possibly as 
ungenerous in that respect as I mav be. Let us get out of it the best 
we can. If we were to reapportion on the basis of 435 possibly 
our good friends from Ohio and those other States, if they were in 
my position, might be speaking as I am speaking. There is an 
analogy, a kind of parallel, between a man’s political existence and 
his physical life. We cling to both with equal tenacity. 

For who to dumb forgetfulness a prey. 

This pleasing anxious being e’er resigned, 

Left the warm precincts of the cheerful day, 

Nor cast one longing lingering look behind. 

I wonder if the gentleman who made the motion in the House to 
reduce the membership to 300 would have made such a motion if 
there had been any prospect of it carrying, and I wonder if, in case it 
would have been legislating him out of Congress, he would not have 
cast a longing lingering look behind. 

I thank you, gentlemen. 


64 APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. RANKIN, REPRESENTATIVE IN 
CONGRESS FROM MISSISSIPPI. 

Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, I realize that this subcommittee is only 
taking testimony ancl that that testimony is to be published for the 
archives of the Committee on the Census, and will possibly play some 
part when this question comes before the House for final considera¬ 
tion, and possibly when the same question comes before the copamittee 
on this issue for consideration in the years to come. I therefore deem 
it my duty to the people whom I have the honor in part to represent 
to come before the subcommittee and put a short statement in the 
record, protesting against any bill at all at this time, basing Missis-' 
sippi’s representation on the census of 1920. I am going to vote 
against any bill at all in the committee and I expect to vote against 
it in the House, for this reason: Under the census of 1920, as it now 
stands, Mississippi is to be deprived of a Representative. At the 
time this census was taken, or purports to have been taken, the Great 
War had just closed and thousands of our young men who were still 
in the service had not returned to their homes. They Avere therefore 
not counted, a great many of them. Owing to the economic condi¬ 
tions that prevailed during and just after the war vast multitudes 
of our people had gone to the manufacturing centers to work in 
manufacturing establishments, cantonments, automobile plants, mu¬ 
nitions factories, and other enterprises, and Avere therefore not in¬ 
cluded in this census. 

In 1900 our population Avas 1,551,000, in round numbers. In 1910 
it was 1,797,000. According to this census the population of Missis¬ 
sippi is only 1,790,000, showing that instead of gaining the 200,000 
or more that Ave gained between 1900 and 1910, Ave have lost, accord¬ 
ing to this census, 7,000 people. That census is not correct. If it 
could be taken to-day, in my opinion, and in the opinion of every 
man from my State Avith AAdiom I have talked, who is familiar with 
the conditions there, knoAvs that these boys have returned home, and 
that those people Avho had gone to work in munition plants, automo¬ 
bile factories, and manufacturing establishments, hospitals, canton¬ 
ments, and other places, have returned to their homes—in my opin¬ 
ion, and in the opinion of those with AAdiom I ha\ T e talked, Ave would 
have at least the population that we had in 1910—1,797,000—and in 
all probability it Avould exceed that number by at least 100,000. 

Mr. Langley. To what do you attribute that ? 

Mr. Rankin. To several causes. In the first place, the war was 
on. Thousands of young men Avent overseas and thousands of them 
went into camps, these camps being located in other States, in Ohio, 
Illinois, Kentucky, and other States—a great many of them had not 
returned to their homes when this census was taken. 

Mr. Brinson. Did that condition prevail in 1920? 

Mr. Rankin. Yes; some of them did not get home until long after 
the taking of this census. 

Mr. Brinson. I Avonder Avhat proportion of them had not gotten 
back? 

Mr. Rankin. I am not able to give you those statistics. 

Mr. Larsen. Do you know how many of them went to Avar, what 
proportion of them ? 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


65 


Mr. Rankin. No; I do not. I would say between 50,000 and 100,000. 
We furnished our quota. 

Mr. Larsen. Now, your loss was 7,000? 

Mr. Rankin. Now, that was only soldiers, sailors, and marines. 
A great many of those men went overseas, and some of them have 
not come back yet. 

Mr. Langley. Have you lost any colored population ? 

Mr. McPherson. Do you know whether or not these men that went 
from Mississippi were counted in the census? If you ask them they 
will tell you they were. 

Mr. Rankin. I am one man coming before this committee who is 
not going to admit that this census was properly taken, and I think I 
will show you why before I leave this room. 

As I said, thousands of our people were away from home working 
in one enterprise or another. For instance, a large number of them 
had gone to automobile and rubber manufacturing establishments in 
Akron, Ohio. I am sure that if you could take the census of Akron, 
now you would find a very marked difference in her population now 
and a year ago, because so many people from other States were there 
to work during and just after the war. 

Mr. Siegel. You will find the same condition prevailed as to Michi¬ 
gan that large numbers were attracted to the manufacturing estab¬ 
lishments in Michigan. 

Mr. Rankin. Certainly. Now, another thing, during the war and 
just before the war, when labor was scarce, there was a great song 
that went throughout our section among the Negro population to the 
effect that they could get better wages elsewhere, and that was a fact 
at the time, and a great many of them left the State on that account. 
For the last 18 months these negroes have been pouring back into 
Mississippi and begging the landlords to take them back. Somebody 
asked me a moment ago about the colored population. That is my 
answer to that. 

If our census were taken to-day I am convinced that we would go 
up around the 2,000,000 mark, or at least show a vast increase of that 
shown by the census report. 

I do not know how it was over the United States, but up until this 
census in Mississippi the census was taken in the months of May and 
June. I live in what you ordinarily would call a wet climate in the 
wintertime. We have between 55 and 59 inches annual rainfall. 
In the winter time it is very wet there. They took this census in 
January, and in some instances they appointed some old rundown 
politicians to supervise the work, and as a result of this inefficient 
census taking a great part of the agricultural population of my State 
will be deprived of representation on the floor of this House. I took 
this matter up personally with the Director of the Census within the 
last three weeks. I am not only going to oppose any bill in this com¬ 
mittee that would deprive Mississippi of its full representation, but 
I am going to oppose it on the floor of the House. 

In a great many communities in Mississippi there was complaint 
made that certain towns or localities did not show the proper popu¬ 
lation under the census of 1920, and in some way a new count was 
obtained, and in every one of those recounts that I am able now to 

57581—21-5 


66 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


recall the second census showed an increase over the first count. That 
was the case in my home town and in many other towns that I can 
mention; and, as I said before, I am confident that if a census was 
properly taken at this time it would show at least 100,000 more peo¬ 
ple in Mississippi than is given us by the census report of 1920. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ISAAC V. McPHERSON, REPRESENTATIVE 
IN CONGRESS FROM MISSOURI. 

Mr. McPherson. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
on the subject before the committee of the number of the House 
membership, I would hesitate to give my opinion,, because I do not 
assume to have any wisdom about how large the membership of the 
House of Representatives ought to be. In my short experience here 
I have been made to believe and my opinion has been corroborated in 
every respect by men that have served a great deal longer, that the 
House is unwieldy. In my judgment, there is no sentiment in the 
country that would be met by Congress increasing its membership, 
because the people are all of one mind on one thing. It is that they 
want us to cut down the expenses and their taxes and make it pos¬ 
sible for them to live within their income. 

The thing that I want to bring to the attention of this committee 
is that Congress either in this session or in the next session, is bound 
to apportion the representatives among the people. I heard it argued 
before the committee this morning that while the Constitution says 
this shall be done, Congress could put it off two years or four years, 
and, of course they could, because we represent the whole American 
people and we can refuse to do our duty, just like we can refuse to 
do any other duty that it is incumbent upon us under the Consitu- 
tion to do. But that it is a duty, to my mind, is plain and clear. 

Let me call attention to some fundamental things that we some¬ 
times forget that simplify a complicated situation. For instance, 
how many of us—or, rather, how few of us—have overlooked the 
fact that over in the other body—in the Senate—there isn’t any pre¬ 
tense of the people being equally represented. The States are repre¬ 
sented there equally. One sovereign is equal to every other sov¬ 
ereignty. Over there Rhode Island, by our scheme, has the same 
power and influence as the State of New York, but that is not true 
in the House of Representatives. In the House of Representatives 
our scheme intends to carry out the idea of equality of American citi¬ 
zens. It is made clear in the Constitution that the Representatives 
shall be apportioned according to the population. Now, the idea 
that the people had in mind, and as shown not only by the funda¬ 
mental law but by all of the amendments, was that as' the burdens 
of citizenship are equal the obligation of allegiance is on every citi¬ 
zen of the United States, whether he has property, whether he has 
paid taxes, or whether he has done this or that, the burden of sup¬ 
porting the Government is equally distributed upon the citizens, 
whether it be a tax on income, customs duties, or merchandise, and 
so on, and the thing is concerned with the proposition that the people 
in their own House of Representatives are equal. 



APPORTIONMENT Of REPRESENTATIVES. 67 

Lack citizen has an equal opportunity and a voice in the creation 
of these burdens that they are all to bear equally, and whatever the 
number agreed upon or whatever shall be the apportionment for a 
Representative, we shall require them to have an equal opportunity 
as nearly as possible, and that is the purpose of requiring an appor¬ 
tionment every 10 years. Now, the people recognize the fact that 
the population fluctuates—it flows here to-day, next year somewhere 
e lse—and the attacks that have been made upon the census and the 
criticisms are incorrect in fact. When we think the population of 
our town is larger than is shown by the census, we are dissatisfied 
with it. During the war the flow of population from Iowa or from 
Missouri or Indiana was greater than usual. Suppose an unusual 
number of citizens moA T ed out of Indiana over into Ohio, having been 
attracted by the high wages there or by this thing or that thing, that 
is one of the objects of taking the census. The people realize that in 
making the laws they must all equally obey and carry the burdens 
that the} 7 impose upon themselves, and this thing has got to be ad¬ 
justed. If Kansas or Indiana or any other State loses in the reap¬ 
portionment we shall all regret, of course, losing from the House 
of Representatives the lovable fellows we have been associated with 
here from those States. But, after all, we are not here to serve one 
another, we are here to carry out this Constitution, which undertakes 
to put upon us the duty to equalize the Representatives in Congress 
according to the population of the several States. So that we ought 
to pass a bill of some kind. It does not make much difference what 
the committee’s opinion of it is, because if you say 435, 460, or 483 it 
has got to run the gamut in the House of Representatives, and every¬ 
body will have a chance to have his argument as he did before on the 
proposition. 

The thing that I am particularlyy interested in is that you do not 
at this time do as you did before, and fail to make provisions for a 
State like Missouri that is going to lose provided we agree on 435 or 
460. 

Out in Missouri we have no law, no law of the State for laying out 
congressional districts. There is no Federal law providing for the 
laying out of congressional districts in a State that looses in mem¬ 
bership. You made no provision that would cover the case of Mis¬ 
souri in your previous bill. Most of the States have a State law 
providing what shall be done, but in Missouri unfortunately we have 
no such law. There is no State law in Missouri providing for the 
laying out of congressional districts, and unless Congress makes one, 
if "we are to lose a Member or two Members, there is absolutely no 
provision by State law or Federal law by which we can run in con¬ 
gressional districts and we would have to run at large. You ought 
not to do that. In the first place, we ought to obey the Constitution 
and do what the people have a right to expect we will do. We ought 
to adjust the representation so that all the American citizens, 
whether they be in Ohio, Missouri, Indiana, or anywhere else, will 
have an equal voice in the making of laws, and the only way you 
can do that is to apportion the Representatives according to the 
population of the several States, and when you do that you ought to 


68 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


do it in such a way that it would enable the State of Missouri to have 
the same opportunity you will have in your State—Georgia—and 
have congressional districts. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you. 

(Thereupon the committee adjourned.) 





APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


69 


Committee on the Census, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington , D. O., July 1921. 

The committee assembled at 10.30 o’clock a. m. on this day, Hon. 
Isaac Siegel, chairman, presiding. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. 

Mr. Langley. Mr. Chairman, I ask that as part of the hearings 
the statement of Dr. Hill, Assistant Director of the Census Bureau, 
giving the corrected figures from the Census Bureau, showing the 
apportionment of Representatives in Congress from 435 up to 483, 
inclusive, by the method of major fractions, be printed in full. 

The Chairman. Is there any objection to the request of Mr. 
Langley? There being no objection, the statement referred to will 
be inserted in full in the record at this point. 

(The statement referred to is as follows:) 


70 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


q 

o 

• r-H 

.S3 

> 

© 

U, 

O 


X! 

S 


3 

bo 

« 

a 

o 


S3 


03 

PS 


PS 


5 ® 
■ga 

cs e 
P.S 


© AoS . 


5 © 

7Z CO 
TJM 

© HH 

P-< -*_j 

® q 

P. 03 

S in 
0) 
O 

Q P. 


g 

'3 

o 



9 


OhNtI<^!Dh VNNNNONOaoOOtOiOON^NWHMM 
i-i O* 


q 

03 

o 


Pi O 

>3 O 
H «*-« 
ca o 

.s 

a § 

© jl 

Pi 3 

g £ 

cm 

© 

m 


S3 


ej 

Pi 


o 

’*7* 


c8 

Pi 


lO 

r*H 

c^T 

a 


03 

PS 


S3 


•ga 

Sc 

P- © 

BS 

o j- 

o p- 


o 


q 

*3 

O 


i ■ 

© A® • 

isis 

P — S+3 

2;°^ 


T3 a> 

?i 

ns hh 
© rH 

8 P 

p- © 

as 

° fe 

o p- 


o 


g 

‘3 

O 


| I 

© A© . 

B«II 

£*8* 


gw 

Sc 

P. QJ 

as 


o 

.-) 


q 

5 


| i 

g <Lo5 . 

P qj ^ % 

e&§£ 

g*g® 


« 

0D 


OrtNiJuJilCtlUi 


esc'it^Ci>ot»oooco«350icot-'j<e^iOi-i<Ncc 

i—l C3 i—1 —1 i—l i—I i-H i—l i—l .—1 


OHNDiiCffli-i^ 


NNNN0NCNM®«ii30N^NU3HNM 

CN »H fH **H T-H rH r-S r—» 


OhN^^cOh^i 


2 c<, fe£22 t ^2 t ' eo ' 0 55“ 3 °t^ , < ,| M“5>-"Neo 

^ CNHH rH rH fH rH r -4 ^ 


CO 

© 

4-i 

q 

£> 



: • rn C3 • © © • . 

liilillil^sa, 

illiflllJl^ 























































































































































































































e\v Mexico 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES 


71 



<MT00rtf'Mt»(<5OOCSHOfflO 


CN .-i 



■»r »-t CM r© i—t im 




HCe©Hr-( 


03 - 

c 5 

oqQ 


ant 


£ £ o j*! 

^ i* oj Si 

b a S.“>30| 
-»S|SS|3 


c3 rf" 

2 a M 


(►■*■»*> 2"»S w>5 otitf 2 S’S 
S o olcS £ g g § £ 8 53 ; S£££ 


2 

S 

&>£ 00 
->ll 
> 













































































































































Apportionment of each number of Representatives from 435 up to 483, inclusive, by the method of major fractions —Continued. 


72 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


Ratio: 236,090. 

444 

Compared with 

present House. 

T S) 

O 

05 

• *••••• 

• • • rH »H rH • • • • • CS • 

• •• • ••••• • 

a * * • • • • • • • 

* « t • • • • « • • 

tt* • • •••• * 

ift « ■«••• • 

tt* * •••*• « 

t t t • ***** • 

• •• • ••••• • 

(** » ••••• • 

—4 **«•••• 

• •**••• 

*••*••• 

• ••••*• 

• •••••• 

<•••*•• 

*•••••• 

• ••*••• 

• •**••• 

Gain. 

00 

T-H 

• • • 

• • • • • 

»••••••*••• •••• 

• *•*•*••••• CO • • • • 

(«••••••••• •••« 

»•••»•••••• •••• 

• (••••••It* • « • • 

• «••••••••• •••( 

• ••••»••••• a • a a 

• •••••••• *• ■••• 

• (••••••••a • • • • 

• «••••••••• *••• 

• * • • • 

• • • rH • H H * 

* • • • • 

• • a • • 

• • • • • 

• • • * • 

• * * * * 

Number 
of Rep¬ 
resenta¬ 
tives. 

444 

OHNlO^OH^NMNNONOWMfCOCOOO^WiOHMMH^Hn 
—I "-I <M i-H i-H <-H .-1 I-H 1—1 1-1 I-* 

Ratio: 236,475. 

443 

Compared with 
present House. 

Loss. 

a» 


• •• • ••••* t 

• • • H »H H *H • *H • • « • • W • 

• • • • ***** • 

• •* • ••••* • 

• •• • ••••• • 

• «• • •«••• • 

• •• * * • • t * • 

• • • • ••••• • 

• •• • •*••• • 

• •• » •••*• • 

• •••••• 

Gain. 

*H 

• • • CO • H • • 

• •••••a**** •••• 

■ *••••••••• co • • • • 

• •••••••••• •• *4.4 

»•••*•••••• •••• 

• •«•*•••••• •••• 

• ••••••«••• •••• 

• •••••••••• •••• 

• ••»••••••• •••• 

• •••••••••• •••• 

• • • • • 

• • • H • rH rH • 

• • • • * 

• • * • • 

• • • • • 

« • • • • 

• • • • • 

• * • • • 

• * * * * 

• • • • • 

Number 
of Rep¬ 
resenta¬ 
tives. 

443 

*-H *-4 <N rH rH 1 —• rtrt H H rH rH 

Ratio: 237,647. 

442 

Compared with 
present House. 

Loss. 

05 


• • • • ••••• • 

• • • *H rH *H • H * * « • • • f~ 

• •• • ••••• • 

• •• • ••••• • 

• • • • ••••• • 

• •• • ••••• • 

• •• • ••••• » 

• •• • ••••• • 

• •• • ••••• • 

• •• • ••••• • 

• • • • • • • 

• •••*•• 

• • a a a • a 

G ain. 

CO 

hH 

• • • • • • 

• 1 • CO • H • • 

• • • • a • 

• ••«••••••• •••• 

• •*•••••••• Cl • • • • 

• •••••••••( •••• 

• •••••••••« •••• 

«•••••••••• •••• 

• ••••••*«(• •••• 

• ••••••••a* •••• 

• •••••••••• •«•• 

• ••*••••••• ••(• 

• • • • a 

• • » rH • H hH • 

• • • • • 

• • • • • 

• * * * * 

• • • • a 

• • • • • 

Number 
of Rep¬ 
resenta¬ 
tives. 

442 

OpHN^'<'®Hfl'NiNNNO(^OOOP5«®«(50X^NiOrtNcOH^'rtM 

1-< I-H H NHH H HHH »— I 

Ratio: 238,628. 

3 

Compared with 
present House. 

Loss. 

05 


*•• • •••.*• a 

• • • H H H H • H * * * * • CJ • H 

• • • • ••••* • 

• •• * ••••• • 

• •• • ••••• • 

• • • • ••••• • 

• •• • ••••• • 

• •• • •••** • 

• •* • ••••• • 

• •• • ••••• • 

• ••••*• 

4 * * • • * i • 

• •••••• 

• •••••• 

• ••••• • 

• * * a a a a 

• ••••• • 

• ••••• • 

Gain. 

m 

rH 

« • • • t • 

• • * CO • i"H • • 

• • • • a a 

• • • • • • 

• • • • • • 

• ••••••••*• ••*• 

• ••••«••••• cj • • • • 

• •••••••••a a • • a 

• •••••••••a •••* 

• ••••••(••a •••• 

• *••• •••«•* •••• 

• •••••■••a* •••• 

• •••••••••• •••• 

• •••••••••• •••• 

• ••••••*• • • •••• 

• • • • 

• • H «HH . 

• • • • 

• • • a 

• • • a 

• • • • 

• • • • 

• • • • 

• • a a 

• • • a 

Number 
of Rep¬ 
resenta¬ 
tives. 

441 

OHN'^ntOH^WWNlNONOOOcOOOiOOX'^^iOfHWCOH^HeO 

r-i 1-4 r-4 ClHH rH HHH rH *H ^4 *H 

Ratio: 238,692. 

440 

Compared with 
present House. 

- 

Loss. 

05 

• ••••III 

• •••«••• 

• • • • • 

• « • r-H i-H H • *H « • • • * • r— 

*•• • ••••• * 

• • • • «•••• * 

••• • ••••• a 

• •• • *•«•* * 

••• • •••*• • 

••• • ••••• • 

••• • 1 • * * * • 

• •• « ■••*.* * 

• ••••*• 

• •••••* 

• • * * * a a 

******* 

• • • • a • a 

• • • • • a • 

• • • • • a a 

• • • • a a 9 

• * * • a a • 

• »•••• • 

Gain. 


• • • • • • 

• 1 • CO • H • • 

• • • • • • 

• • • • • • 

••••••••••» »«•• 

• ••••»••*•• CJ • • • • 

• •••*•••*•• •••• 

*•••••••••* ••*« 

• •••••••••* •••• 

• •••••••••• t • • • 

• •••••••••• •••• 

• • • • • 

• • H * rH • 

• * * • a 

• * * * * 

• * * * * 

• • • • a 

• • • a a 

• * * * * 

• • • a a 

• * * * * 

Number 
of Rep- 
j resenta- 
tives. 

440 

OiHt^*f^c0fH^(>JWh.(NONOG0C0OO»0O«^W»0^c<C*5HC0HM 

’" H »-tCs|i-Hr-Ht-H HHH r—t r-« rH 

State. 

United States... 

Alabama. 

Arizona . 

Arkansas . 

California. 

Colorado . 

Connecticut. 

Delaware. 

Florida . 

\ji gi a . . 

Idaho. 

Illinois. 

Indiana. 

Iowa. 

Kansas. 

Kentucky. 

Louisiana . 

Maine . 

Maryland . 

Massachusetts . 

Michigan . 

Minnesota . 

Mississippi . 

Missouri . 

Montana . 

Nebraska ... 

Nevada . 

New Hampshire . 

New Jersey . 

New Mexico . 

New York . 

North Carolina . 

North Dakota . 






















































































































































































































































APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES 


73 






























































































































Apportionment of each number of Representatives from 435 up to 483, inclusive, by the method of major fractions —Continued. 


74 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


gw 

£ S 

O 

U & 


1«I! 

. ^ o 


Srtt'iOTtUDi-ofesKMOO^aooOOOOCOOCPtOOOO^C^tO^INCOC^^r^CO 


gw 

3 g 

3S 

O Js 

O 


a*g£ 

I *! 53 


OHNif:^cDH^NWOONOOOOOOC»5«0«DCOOOO^lN<DH(Nf*: 

i-H »—I rH H r—I t—I r-Hi-Hi-HrH r—I 




§ 

1C 

S3 


Si 

■da 

h ->-> 

ag 

as 

o % 

O » 


H 

•a 

o 


OHNWTUfflH^NNOOMOOOOOOM® S S 2 00 ^ e ^' 0,HCSIC,:i ’ -,rr '’ -lt ' 


HW a> t> 

Ior= 


® 

'SW 

Q) H-l 
+J 
^ rt 

fta 

a s 
° ^ 
O ft 


o 

W 


fl 

'3 

o 


<3 A, ob . 

ISIS 

I*!» 


OHNjn^(Orr<t'NeqOONOOOOOOWffl<0 5® 0(:i,, ' Nl ‘5Hfi|P5H^rtC>3 


5 ® 

Si 1/2 
*§ 
gw 

3-s 

p-S 

as 

° b 
U ft 


I 

w 


a 

'3 

o 


s A 5 ® • 

1*1! 

£ o ^ 


OH(^>0^i«OH^NNNC<IOOOO»eOffl®®000'ifNU5H«Mrt^rtM 

^ ^ H CN vH rH H H H rH r—4 ^ , < * 


S'C 


v> 03 

li’S 

^j’ce'o 

<00 


si . 

CJ 3 c3.rt 

® Eio 


>>03 
’ ^ ^ 
a s.s 

8 3'S q) 


•gSa-SS; 


is 

, CO • <-s 

: &>>§ 


: • : a ^*§44S-§ 

c3 u • § K c3 

; ^ MO'S a • SS'rn 3-S '2 “ 3 ffl h-> W xj ,3 

0 ,2 <D 2 *r^5 2 03 G2 o ^ ^ o3*h*h*hh OQjfljSooOOO 































































































































































































































APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES 


75 






Tj.ffiKNMt'MOONHO 
CM CO H« i-l 


CM «D «0 i-H 


03 >C S ^ 

’£ B — O 
03 2 -^ © 


> r J~. eg - w 

S«>>o OQ g 

•XI 5 g-S-cxi “ 

•S-SlSsSS 


%4 § ■al w i 


g_ - 

Hi?!" 

O 
t>> 



i 











































































































































Apportionment of each number of Representatives from 485 up to 488 , inclusive, by the method of major fractions —Continued. 


76 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


03 

« 


pCJ 

£ 1 

> O 

•gw 

do 

8 S 

O 

Q a 


s 


|« 1 > 

£ og 2 


OHOOK5'»'®rtTr«WOOMO«)OMM®«fflOaO[ONfflHN2JM^MM 


£ © 

■gW 

C3 rj 

il 
18 
Q d 


| A* „ 
a«S£ 




5 ® 

?i 

■gw 

as 


i 


^4 | | 

® ji<s . 

laig 

I'Sp 


Ortt-iO'rOrt Tf MN^«0»OOC«®0 0 0<1CION®-HIN50N^J-(M 


T 3 M 

a,HH 

t- *a 

© a 

a® 

as 

O 

O & 


8 

»-3 


§ A© • 

tm 

|sp 


O^t'jO'O'COi-i'WNNOONOMOOOWffltOOOXiONffli-iMWN^rtW 


*3 

'Ohj 

CD HH 

^ 4 J 

c3 c 

p-s 

as 

O fcs 

o a 



0'-i t ^jo-«'«'>-i'« , cje^Q^e2oooooo« | oo5Doooo^Jc^«ir-(oie<9c^'^* , -i e <s 












































































































































































































Ohio. 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES 


»£5 OJ CO COl'* CO O g <N <N O tC —< <-■ 


CO —« . . 



U)Ol«NMNMOgCINO®»Mrt 




iO®MNMt'MOONNOtOtOHH 

(N CO >“ | N - 1 


■ i.S'o gg 

iillis 

oO $ 


a g 

iff l? 


if g : f2g|j ;||!?|f 





























































































































Apportionment of each number of Representatives from 485 up to 483 , inclusive , by the method of major fractions —Continued. 


78 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


03 

Q3 


r/' 

03 — 

-o 2, 
o — 


c Z 
o ~ 


o 

a 


c 

3 

u 


i. 3 . 

ijSco 
0 03 a> > 

3 «:• — 


£ 


®■ 


gj 

# o 

4-> 

C3 


*3 <X> 

c/3 

^ 3 

* o 

•gw 

go 

o. O 
3 «5 
° ^ 
C> ft 


3 

"3 

o 


•— i i 

« A<s . 

( 0 ) ^ co 


O H SC “3<C H T|| 


£>3NCC03O00^XS''!CN!OC00>CCS|®HN^'NU3HM 

rH CH rH rH HHH rH I-l T 1 -H 


Or-lOCiO'^tOi-^OMNOOmOOOOOOMOt'SOC OOiOWSOHN^WlCrtM 
rH rH — CM r- —. rH —I —I .—' •—< rH hji rH 


03 

03 


t/3 

55 5 

■gw 

d <z> 

a> 

O £h 


d 

O 


^ , i 

<U £_eS . 

s«g > 

S . c/3 

. ^ t tr cD — 3 

£ o 2 


03 

03 


S 


5 ®* 

k 3 
^ o 
’ey 

g 3 

3- o 

S O) 

® 
° 3 
O ft 


o 

i-3 


_c 

3 

O 


t-> , l 

■S&fgj 
Sp3 § > 
5-s 8+3 


• • • « • 


OHOOO’fOHrf-eqwOOcOOOOOOO^ONcOCOO^W^HNTfN^HcC 

rH rH i-H C^J fH r—* r—' *H *—« i-H H rH r—( 




03 

03 


-ay 

Q) rH 

3 -r> 
3 a 
ft® 


O »H 

o ft 


o 

a 


3 

'3 

o 


S 


OHOOW'^CT-I^INOtMMOOOOSCrttOt'COOOOinNtOHINH'NTrHM 

rH rH rH (NHH rH rH rH rH rH rH «H 












































































































































































































































APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


79 


CM .... CM 


$ 


CICOOCCCNMOglMMOtOO '- 1 



a 


OiCOOOMf^fOOOC'JMCCOHH 





gocor^Mt^fCOgc^wotocHH 


; ; 2 
.2 ’C .2 -2 

§§■55 

> ~ «3^ S 
“ oQ " 


C3 

d'a 

■ S'Sfl m 

-g 53 W).b-§ ■ 

i'3|>g 


• '§-g.a>a-a 

^ 5 g.§.e.a ® a; §.s,c^ § I 

^72®s :1 GD:3GHc§u. lMl e5a>.;3>> 

OOOPHpHajcoE-»HP>>^^I^!^ 


*» .- 


















































































































































Apportionment of each number of Representatives from 435 up to 483, inclusive, by method of major fractions —Continued. 


Ratio: 227,340. 

464 

Compared with 

present House. ^ 

V 

hj 

Loss. O 

W 

tio: 

NMENT OF RE 

PRESENTATIVES 

• ••••« rH ••• * 

• rH 

• 

• 

• 

: ; 


Gain. 

rH 

CO 

• » TT • rH • • rH 

CM »«••••• rH CO • 

• • 

I • 

; ; 

i CM iH CO rH 

Number 
of Rep¬ 
resenta¬ 
tives. 

464 

CHCOiQ'0'«H'<j'MINO)CO'-iOOH110MtON(DOOOiON<Oi-(W , t , N©'- | co 

1-11-4 1-1 <M 1-1 1—1 1-4 HH14 rH rH ■» H 

Ratio: 227,515. 

CO 

cd 

Compared with 
present House. 

Loss. 

CM 


• ««••• rH • • • '• 

rH 

; ; ; 


Gain. 

O 

CO 

• • • t • 

• • iH ^ • H • • rH 

• • • • • 

O ••••••• rH CO • 

• 

• <i ; 

• CM rH CO rH . 

• • 

• • 

• • 

Number 
of Rep¬ 
resenta¬ 
tives. 

s 

TT 

0»HOO‘OTPCOHsrcOC s lCiCOHOOf-HOOCCCDN«DOOCiOC'lO*H(N > ifC4CfHW 

rH *—1 rH CM »H rH rH H n H r—i rH hji rH 

Ratio: 227,850. 

CM 

CD 

Compared with 
present House. 

Loss. 

CM 


••••••rH * • • • 

rH 

• * 

:::::: 

Gain. 

O 

CM 

• » t— 1 • rH • • rH • 

rH ••••••• rH CO • 

j 

J • 

• CM rH CO rH ! 

Number 
of Rep¬ 
resenta¬ 
tives. 

462 

OfHOO»OU'^iHTf'COWOOCOiHOCiHXcCcDNOCXiOC v J«DrHMrrC^OfH« 

1—1 rH rH CM »—1 »—1 *—1 rH ri rH rH i—< TT »—< 

Ratio: 228,477. 

461 

Compared with 
present House. 

Loss. 

CM 

• ••«•••••• 

• •••••««•• 

• ••••••••• 

• ••••••••• 

••••••rH • • • • 

rH 

; ; 


Gain. 

00 

CM 

• • H • rH • • rH • 

H • • i i i i i rH CO • 

• 

• ; 

■ CS l-* ~ 

Number 
of Rep¬ 
resenta¬ 
tives. 

rH 

CD 

OHOCiU5v®HrreONI!OMHOOHOOMfflt'tD050 1 clN<OHINH"NiOHM 

r—1 iH r-t CM rH rH rH r. h H h rH ^ rH 

Ratio: 228,882. 

460 

Compared with 
present House. 

Loss. 

CM 


••••••Hi • • • • • 

rH • 

; ; 


Gain. 

CM 

• • rH -T T' • H • i rH » i- 

H i—1 CO • • 

; ; 

; ; 

• CM rH CM »H • 

i Number 
j of Rep- 
! resenta- 
tives. 

O 

CD 

OHteiOVHH^cOINIlOmHOOHOOMCtHCOOOiOlMSCHNrPCNiOHU 

rH »—* fHCNiHrHfH rH rH rH <—( i—< iH 

oJ 

•*-» 

C8 

CO 

' 

United States... 

Alabama. 

Arizona.-. 

Arkansas. 

California. 

Colorado. 

Connecticut . 

Delaware . 

Florida. 

Georgia. 

Idaho. 

jiunuio ............... 

Indiana . . 

Iowa. 

Kansas. 

Kentucky. 

Louisiana. 

Maine. 

Maryland. 

Massachusetts. 

Michigan. 

Minnesota. 

Mississippi. 

Missouri. 

Montana. 

Nebraska. 

Nevada. 

Mow Warn rkcVn.ru 

New Jersey. 

New Mexico. 

New York. 

N orth Carolina. 

North Dakota. 























































































































































































































APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES 


81 


‘OCBCOOOcOt^COCOCIC'iOOC'Mri 
CO T-» (M «—< .-i 



»QO)CCOOCO^WOO(N(NOOOWH 
C* CO r—t CN4 *—< f-H 


kOOCOOCcCt^CCCO-MCICCOC'b 
T—' V--4 *““3 »—< 


c5 

c o 
os S-^ © 

> tr. cS S* © 


O G ^ m 

:,c o g.§,a,c ^ S 
©73 bog O § * 
o OJ&JV 

OOOP-i&oj<jj£-<£* 


03 u 

-*-> a 

P> 


W> c 

•£ 

«r 

© ■- 


57581-21- 




























































































































Apportionment of each number of Representatives from 435 up to 483, inclusive, by the method of major fractions — Continued. 


Ratio: 224,161. 

469 

Compared with 

present House. 

hj 

POR- 

c/> 

C/3 

O 

DIO I 

CN 

U 

p: 

ENT 

01 


CM . 

W . 

Ph . 

. m 

. H 

sTATIV; 

. pH • • 

ES. 


Cain. 

36 



. r-H N" 

• i-H 


• rH • 

i • • ! 



CN i—< CO •"“* • 

| Number 

of Rep¬ 
resenta¬ 
tives. 

469 

O H oo ‘O ^ O COCNOCOwOCrHOOCOCCt»c£i—'OCiCCNCCWCN'-tiCNCOwcO 

i-H i-H rH CN fH r— < pH p-H i-H H t—i pH ^ «-H 

Ratio: 224,841. 

468 

Compared with 
present House. 

Loss. 












c 

c3 

o 

35 



i-H TT 

i-H 


rH ! CN 


ill iH CO 
• • • 

3(^1 * | * 

NriCQH . 

Number 
of Rep¬ 
resenta¬ 
tives. 

468 

OHOO‘O^OrHTrWCJC3CCrHCO^HXWONOtH(XilCC^«CrlC^’tfC*CD*^CO 

H rH W Cd rH r-( r—» rH r-H rH t— 1 i—1 TT W 

Ratio: 225,522. 

467 

Compared with 
present House. 

Loss. 

CN 








• • • • 



Gain. 

CO 



i-H Tf 

pH 


r-H • CN 


• • •pH CO 

• • • 


N -H CO rH • 

Number 
of Rep¬ 
resenta¬ 
tives. 

467 

C3»HOO^O'^^DiH'^CCC^a3COrdOOiHOOCOON'r'HX‘iOCN«CpHClrj(C^CDpHOO 

pH iH i-H CN i-H i-H pH i-H i-H r-H •—i i“H -qp r—« 

Ratio: 226,176. 

466 

Compared with 
present House. 

Loss. 

CN 








• • • • 

• • • • 



Gain. 

33 



l-H T* 

i-H 


pH ! CN 


* t • i-H CO 


N i-H COW l 

Number 
of Rep¬ 
resenta¬ 
tives. 

466 

OHOOiOn'OiH^fOC^OiCOpHOOiHOOCOONcOHXioatOpHW^WtDiHM 

i-H I-H I-H CN I-H I-H I-H I-H r—i i-H i-H —-» XT* r-H 

Ratio: 226,849. 

465 

Compared with 
present House. 

Loss. 

cn 








• • i • 

• • • • 

• • • • 

i • • • 

• • • • 

• • • • 


• • • • • 

• • • « • 

• • • • • 

• • • • • 

• • • • • 

• • • • ■ 

• • • • ■ 

• • • • • 

• • • • • 

Gain. 

CN 

CO 



i-H Hji 

pH 


pH ! CN 


. . .pH CO 


s •—i co <-1 : 

Number 
of Rep¬ 
resenta¬ 
tives. 

465 

OHOOiOTrtOHrfCOWC3CCpHGOpHCCC':^h*cOiHX»0(NtOiHC^'VOlcD»HCO 

I-H I-H i-H CN H H i-H i-H r“i i-H r-H pH v-H ^ 

State. 

United States... 

Alabama . 

Arizona . 

Arkansas . 

California . 

Colorado . 

Connecticut . 

Delaware . 

Florida . 

Georgia . 

Idaho . 

Illinois . 

Indiana . 

Iowa . 

Kansas . 

Kentucky . 

.Louisiana . 

Maine . 

Maryland . 

Massachusetts . 

M ichigan . 

Minnesota . 

Mississippi . 

Missouri . 

Montana . 

Nebraska . 

Nevada . 

New Hampshire . 

ilCW o 3CV .. 

New Mexico . 

New York . 

North Carolina . 

North Dakota . 

















































































































































































































































APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES 


83 




















































































































Apportionment of each number of Ecprescntalives from 485 up to 483, inclusive , by the method of major fractions —Continued. 


84 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


8 

O 

■+— 

03 

PS 


© 


^ O 
© ^ 
C3 C 

c. £ 

o p 

O & 


o 


L-< I • 

Ek § > 

3 «/. —• 


HHCOlO’I'OH'f 


CO CN C 


00 

sf 


03 

PS 


CO 

TJ1 


+3 © 

ZU s> 

* § 

•33 

s 3 

P- OJ 

£ 35 
0 b 
O C- 


o 

P 


c 

'5 

c 


r—* t-H CO *—1 


1 I 

« i. c3 . 

rO •*-* */3 

£«S2 
35P 
£ 0 £ 


Loss. 

(M 


0 

£ 

cc 

c 3 


c 



c5 

PS 


<N 


£ c 
£- © 

£35 

o P 

O » 


Nri'llH 


£ 

£ ° 


^ ap 

hh <a > 


(OOi(3'l'OH'1'MINmMH«IH«MiNCrtC«iCINOi-i(N'rlNN. 

r—< l—* CS H —( r-H r—1 r—1 f—< r-H r-H Tt 1 » 


8 


« 


^ © 

II 

3 g 

p © 

rT ^ 
£ ® 
0 lL 
p *“ 


c 

'3 

c 


P A. c 3 
•g 

£« £ 
s«„ ■ 
fc 0 


3 o 
■ > 
35 +2 


!CCjO'»'<CiHTP«i(Na!«rHOOr-iOOMtCNC-XiClNtti-i(N'!r(N®-lM 


CO 

k 


<£} 

PS 


72 © 

.p, CO 

■2 a 

p -p 
£ 3 
C- o 

B co 
© 

0 

o ^ 


Loss. 

CS 


L- 

a 

co 

"S 


0 



in . I 

X i-tf • 
| o gP 


OH*iOTti®i-ii«m(Nacc-ioo>HOOMOsc-i)ou;N«rtN^(N!c. 

1—1 rH CnHi-» 1—I r—. r—1 r-i »—1 ^ ZZ 


03 

-m 

CO 


35 

03 

CO 

T3 


C 

P 


C3 


w .3 
c 5 ffl 

£ 8 S-2 

3-ciS= 


3 

© © 


O C3 
‘ ri o k 

Jgf 

<«oooa 


£ a 


0i 


g«>>3 j o 

3 vriM p' 

H W In Cj 


c3 p- 

3.2 : s * g : - ” M • c - c ^ g 

§p ^ q a|| p II gffl ill £ & * fe >- 


PC 


ts: 


ri i C+J n * —. c§ * P c /3 K ^ P - 

p • ca 3 o.EPr 2 ij j ^ «s or i: 

,2 'C3O§0^W;32 V1 42'T'^'5S h '“^ 

73 H % gg-§ 1‘1-S cl g? §5 > Ec * & &ri 



























































































































































































































































Ohio. 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


85 


C*5 i-i <N i—l —1 


SO —I <M i-i i-l 


5 05 •'f Oi CO OCCOOi-iC^C^OcOt^eNli 


- i|l 0M 

jlIjlaSxll'EfliJg. 

So£«,?-2lSSS>>SS;S;£ 























































































































Apportionment of each number of Representatives from 435 up to 483, inclusive, by the method of major fractions Continued. 


86 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 




GO 

>. 3 
K c 
t: hh 

o 

C3 r- 

C o 

gs 

C c- 


o 

i-3 


—> ■ * 

« ios . 

c " p 3 

PK Sk 

3 __ t<: —i 

£ 6 £ 


(OOC TTCC!NJ>CO'HCO-HOOw*ONa)t^-iX »OCMO—CM CO 


c3 

PJ 


pH 


^ o 

T" *T< 

o H ’ i 

►- 4^» 

s c 

& ^ 
co 
P o 
o *-* 
o ft 


o 

-1 


c 

5 

c 


ft• I I 

o A a 
ft S '+5 

Sft g 

3 .tf. • 

^ ° £ 


iHOO^D'tOrMTfCOINOiCO'-^oO'-'COCONr^NHOCiOC'lO' 


a> 

*§ 
•"C hH 
C) >“H 
h 4-> 

b ^ 

P CO 
ft 

c £ 
O ft 


o 

ft 


g 

eS 

O 


OlrH'tN 


o (A. 03 . 

i 

£ o 


<00C'tC0fHTj'C0<M05C0^0Cr-(00CCNr^r-rHX)OMCrHC^^CSN(NW 

1-H r-H (N r-H r-H r-H r-H r-H i-H t —i r-H Tj< r—i 


Ph 


" o 

■gw 

S P 
P- <B 
C to 
P <B 
o s- 
U ft 


o 

ft 


I- , I 

'P ° 


p 

£ ° 


p <u 
« > 
CO "H 


>-lHOOiO'>fCOHTj<cO(NO>CO’-'<»WOOMN^.f'rHOOiO(NCCiHN1<C^h.C'lCf 

r-i T—t r -1 C-l T—I r-C r-H —H t—( r-1 H ,— t 


8 


ci 

Pi 


^ o 
S hh 
i2 ^ 
5 c 

ft- o 

E CO 

4> 

O 

O ft 


O 

ft 


P 

’3 

o 


« i.cs . 
-2 oJ-P ^ 
S W o; > 

rj ,__ if )< 

iz; 0 2 


(00>O^fflH-<t«)(N®«HI»r-l00C0NNO-C»10Nc0rH(NTrMl^(M 

T "^ ^ CM pHr-Hf-H »-H r-H r-H i—I « tH «—t 


o 

4H> 

03 

-4-a 

m 


o> 

c3 

4-5 

m 

o 

4-P 

*3 

& 


o3 i g.J2 

I§8S 

5 , ci5’3 


s . 
-.2 « 
o - 4^ i_ 
•Co 03 
cS O 

8«S 

o o ^ 
ooQ 


c3 c3 V 

•D'Eto 

u b " 

5 S 

ft c 


03 
.23 P 
O c3 

.S'-S 


ft c3 


T3 P 


P ft 


_■• ft B ^ w 
p o; -s ft h 


C 03 


sS 


»|| iSliltsHigi 

iPlfllll 

w O q 03 C3 C3.H.H-H.H O o c) O O O D G 


^OOH 

^ ^ pC 




orth 


















































































































































































































































APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


87 


CM "-T ’—(CM —I —-4 


CaiM'C.MXM-H-ifiCM;. (CI«N — 


tooM>c.mxj( 




0»M>01WSCWr-rtNN WH 

CM <-'J M -M -I —( ' 


’a —(—.CO 


S.Sl'TCimUCMrtrHCMCSCOl'fNr 

CM CM nw CM 


. . . a 
. g-cc « 

• *5§oS 

<S • c3~ t-’P a> 

: o c a . , 0 a M.r 

3 SSg|gggS 3 teA|| 

0003-,P2coaifc-<ErO^';>J£i> 


c c 
®U 

gijf£ 


C 60 

•j? a 

p'P 
o e 
o o 
.23 £ 



















































































































Apportionment of each number of Representatives from 435 up to 483, inclusive, by the method of major fractions— Continued. 


88 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


te 3 
p o 

■gw 

rt G 

3 ft 


r/ 

a 


Cs © > 

log¬ 


’s 3 
^ o 


C 3 rt 
8 © 
o ft 


a 


© is . 

I«!I 

^ o g — 


■sw. 

Sg 

ft© 

8iS 

o *- 
O ft 


©A^ • 

lass 

l»s= 


a)<X>^^iHrrCO(MOCOr^OOrHOO^NCCNrHOf.'CDC^O*HC^^C^t^WCO 


iHHOCCTt«COH^«(MOCOHCC»HO&COSXNHOr OCMCOHW^NNWCO 


r-i r-t 


-iXCD^OrHTjicO<NOCOHOO»HXCONOON’HXfDCMOriW^OJNOI« 

*-t r-H COHH »-« r—< H t — 4 ^ i-H Tf H 


'ctd 


B © 

o g 
Q ft 


© 

•S«Si 


HXO^OrH^COC40)COHCCr^XCONpONr-<OC»0(NOH<NTjiCMN(MM 



orth Dakota 








































































































































































































Ohio 


APPORTIONMENT OF 


EEPRESENTATIV ICS. 




rr 


CO 


O 05 
CM 


1 O CO oc CO 


I ^ CM CM ^ ;£> CM 

CM r—( r—< 


^ ,-h rr 


i co 


8 


05 -rf O CO OC CO 

TP 


cm 


CM CM —• c£) CM —. 


^P t—< r—H 


CO 


tD 05 rf C CO 00 CO 
CM Tf 


— CM CM t"- CM 

i CM *—I r—t 




CO 


COrrOCOOOCC^^CMCM^'X^M 
CM Tp *—* CM i-H rH 


C3 

a 

o 

O 


03 


C 

O' 


• & ~ 

.2 y, . 2-2 

C £ o 

** £-* © 

> ^ c3 j? o 

T *—• *^G ' r ‘ 

5£3«g«2SSg£>£*** 


' bfi 

I a§i| 
— si 


5 JZ +* 

£?8S.a>> 





































































































90 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES 


Boundary ratios and ratios for division. 


[The “boundary ratios” indicate the point at which, as the ratio or divisor is reduced, the States suc¬ 
cessively receive Representatives for major fractions. For instance, a ratio of 285,904 will give a House 
composed of 400 Members apportioned by the method of major fractions. If this ratio is reduced to 265,680 
the quotient for Massachusetts involves a major fraction, entitling that State to another Representative, so 
that the size of the House then becomes 401. A further reduction to 264,705 gives Illinois another Repre¬ 
sentative, making the total 402, and so on. The ratios or divisors recommended for making the actual 
apportionment are those midway between the boundary ratios, although any ratio or divisor intermediate 
between two successive boundary ratios will give the same result.] 


Boundary ratios. 

Ratios for 
division 
midway 
between 
boundary 
ratios. 

Total 
number 
of Repre¬ 
sentatives 
in the 
House. 

State receiving the 
additional Repre¬ 
sentatives. 

( 

Total 
number 
of Repre¬ 
sentatives 
for State. 

266,127. 

265,904 

400 

West Virginia. 

6 

265' 680. 

265; 193 

401 

Massachusetts. 

15 

264' 705. 

263; 640 

402 

1 Illinois. 

25 

263'575. 

263; 188 

403 

Maryland. 

6 

262' 800. 

261,550 

404 

New York. 

49 

260; 299. 

259,667 

495 

Pennsylvania. 

34 

259;034. 

258; 308 

406 

South Carolina.... 

7 

257', 581. 

253,946 

407 

North Dakota. 

3 

256,311. 

256;142 

408 

New York. 

41 

255,973. 

255,395 

409 

Ohio. 

23 

254; 817. 

254; 600 

410 

Indiana.. 

12 

254;382. 

254', 354 

411 

Kentucky. 

10 

254,325. 

254;053 

412 

Illinois.... 

26 

253; 780. 

253,'41S 

413 

California. 

14 

253; 055. 

253; 025 

414 

Iowa. 

10 

252;994. 

252; 874 

415 

Michigan. 

15 

252; 754. 

252; 625 

416 

Pennsvlvania. 

35 

252j 496. 

252; 484 

417 

South Dakota. 

3 

252,472. 

252; 312 

418 

New Jersey. 

13 

252j152. 

252; 109 

419 

Missouri.. 

14 

252; 066. 

251,939 

420 

Texas. 

19 

25R811. 

251,467 

421 

Georgia. 

12 

251,122. 

251,073 

422 

Minnesota. 

10 

251,024. 

250', 812 

423 

Connecticut. 

6 

250^00. 

250,368 

424 

Wisconsin. 

11 

250,135. 

249; 337 

425 

N ew Y ork.. 

42' 

248,539. 

247,' 858 

426 

Massachusetts. 

16 

247; 176. 

246', 733 

427 

Alabama. 

19 

246',290. 

246; 192 

428 

Washington.. 

6 

246,093. 

245; 864 

429 

Tennessee.... 

10 

245;634. 

245', 358 

430 

Pennsylvania 

36 

245,081. 

244,905 

431 

Ohio. 

24 

244; 728. 

244', 489 

432 

Illinois... 

27 

244; 249. 

243,988 

433 

New York_ 

43 

243;726. 

243; 399 

434 

North Carolina.... 

11 

243,072. 

242,415 

435 

Virginia.. . 

10 

241,758. 

240,' 780 

436 

Rhode Island.. 


239^801. 

239;471 

437 

Louisiana_ 

8 

239jl40. 

239; 023 

438 

Texas. 

20 

23S;905. 

238,827 

439 

Pennsvlvania. 

37 

238,749. 

238', 692 

440 

Mississippi . 

8 

238,634. 

238; 628 

441 

New York . 

44 , 

238,622. 

237;647 

442 

Oklahoma.- .. 

9 

236,671. 

236', 475 

443 

Michigan . 

16. 

236,278.•. 

236q 090 

444 

California 

15 

235,901. 

235,865 

445 

Kansas_ 

s 

235,828. 

235;766 

446 

Illinois 

28 

235,704. 

235; 662 

447 

Nebraska, 

6 

235,619. 

235; 348 

448 

New Mexico . 

2 

235,077. 

235,015 

449 

Ohio . 

25 


23i; 857 

450 

Vermont 

2 

234,762. • 

234,597 

451 

Missouri 

15 

234,431. 

234,101 

452 

Indiana 

13 

233,770. 

233;699 

453 

New Jersey 

14 

233,627. 

233,552 

454 

Arkansas 

8 

233,476 . 

233;374 

455 

M assnoh 11 setts 

17 

233,272. 

232,903 

456 

New York 

45 

232,534. 

232 ! 101 

457 

Pen n s yl vn n i a 

38 

231,667.. 

230;911 

458 

Georgia. 

13 

230,155. 

229;555 

459 

Kentucky 

11 

228,954. 

228; 882 

460 

Towa. 

1 t 

228,809. 

228 477 

461 

Wisnonsiri 

19 

228,145. 

227 850 

462 

TSl P \\r YYirlr 

4P» 

227^54. 

227; 515 

463 

TUinni^ 

on 

227,475. 

227,340 

46^ 


91 

227;205... 

226 849 

465 


1 1 

226; 493.... 

226|176 

466 

Pennsylvania. 

39= 


















































































































































APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


91 


Boundai'y ratios and ratios for division —Continued. 


Boundary ratios. 

Ratios for 
division 
midway 
between 
boundary 
ratios. 

225,859. 

225.522 

224.841 
224,161 
223,781 
223.437 
223', 132 

222.841 
222 594 
222,430 
221 6*1 
221.S97 
220 448 
22 \ 029 
219,882 
219 728 
219.525 
218,986 

225,185. 

224,496. 

223,825. 

223,636. 

223,238 .. . 

223,025. 

222.656. 

222,532. 

222,32*. 

221,034... 

220,760. 

221,135 . 

219,923. 

219,*40. 

219.610. 

219.433. 

218,539.... 



Total 
number 
of Repre¬ 
sentatives 
in the 
House. 


State receiving the 
additional Repre¬ 
sentatives. 


Total 
number 
of Repre¬ 
sentatives 
for State. 


467 

Ohio . 

468 

West Virginia. 

469 

South Carolina- 

470 

Oregon. 

471 

Alabama. 

472 

Now York. 

473 

Maryland. 

474 

Tennessee. 

475 

North Carolina.... 

476 

Michigan. 

477 

California. 

478 

Pennsylvania. 

479 

Massachusetts. 

480 

Virginia. 

481 

Illinois. 

482 

Missouri. 

483 

Maine. 


26 

7 

s 

4 

11 

47 

7 

11 

12 

17 
16 
40 

18 
11 
30 
16 

4 


Mr. L anoley. Mr. Chairman, Representative Marion E. Rhodes, of 
Missouri, has prepared a brief on the question of the authority to 
redistriet, and I would ask leave to have the brief inserted in the 
record in full. 

The Chairman. There being nonobjection, the same will be inserted 
in the record in full. 

(The said brief is as follows:) 

[Brief of Hon. Marion E. Rhodes, a Representative in Congress, from the State of Mis¬ 
souri, on the question of the Right of Congress under the Constitution to delegate to 

the States authority to redistrict.] 

Section 2, Article I, of the Constitution, provides that Representatives and 
direct taxes shall he apportioned among the several States according to their 
respective numbers. 

Section 2, Article I, of the Constitution, also provides that the actual enumera¬ 
tion of inhabitants of the United States shall be made within three years after 
the first meeting of Congress, under the Constitution, and within every subse¬ 
quent period of 10 years in such manner as Congress shall direct. This same 
section 2 provides that the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for 
every 30,000. This is all the constitutional authority there is on the subject 
of taking the census and fixing the basis of representation in Congress, except 
what appears in section 2 of the fourteenth amendment, and from 1790 down to 
the present time Congress has in various acts, hut not always in the same way, 
provided for taking the census once in 10 years and fixing by law the basis of 
representation. 

It is clear under the provisions of section 2, Article I, of the Constitution, 
that the object of taking the census was for the purpose of apportioning direct 
taxes and Representatives in Congress among the several States. Inasmuch as 
the census is to be taken once within each period of 10 years, it is also clear 
this requirement was.put into the Constitution in order to equitably apportion 
Representatives in Congress among the several States and to provide for an 
increase in the number of Representatives in Congress, from time to time, as 
the population might increase. 

Following the decennial census of 1790, Congress passed its first apportion¬ 
ment act, effective April 14, 1792. This was a very brief act, consisting of 
but one short paragraph, conforming to the requirements of the Constitution 
above mentioned. All Members of Congress under this act were evidently 
elected at large, because there is no reference therein to the question of 
congressional districts. The act provided for one Representative in each State 



















































92 


APPORTIONMENT OP REPRESENTATIVES. 


for every 33,000 persons, determined according to section 2 of Article I of the 
Constitution. (1 Stat. L., p. 253.) 

Following the census of 1800, effective January 14, 1802, Congress passed 
the second apportionment act, providing for one Representative in Congress 
for every 33,000 persons in each State, determined according to the Constitu¬ 
tion. This act, like the preceding, consisted of but one short paragraph and 
made no reference to the election of Members of Congress by congressional 
districts. In fact, it was a verbatim copy of the act of 1792. (2. Stat. L., 

p. 128.) 

Following the census of 1810, by act of Congress, effective December 21, 1811, 
the third apportionment act was passed. The only difference in this act and 
the two preceding acts was that the ratio was changed to one Member for 
every 35,000 persons in each State, determined according to the Constitution. 
(2 Stat. L., p. 669.) 

Following the census of 1820. by act of Congress, effective March 7, 1822, 
Congress passed its fourth apportionment act, which was substantially the 
same as those preceding, except the basis of representation was fixed* at one 
Representative for every 40,000 persons in each State, determined according 
to the Constitution, no reference being made in this act to the question of 
congressional districts. (3 Stat. L., p. 651.) 

Following the census of 1830, by act of Congress, effective May 22, 1832, 
Congress passed its fifth apportionment act, which was Substantially the same 
as each of the preceding acts, except the basis of representation was increased 
from one Member for every 40,000 persons to one Member for every 47,000 
persons, to be determined according to the Constitution, no reference being 
made to congressional districts. (4 Stat. L., p. 516.) 

Following the census of 1840, by act of Congress, effective June 25, 1842, 
Congress passed its sixth apportionment act, fixing the ratio at one Repre¬ 
sentative for every 70,683 persons in each State having a fraction greater than 
one moiety of the said ratio. This act consists of two paragraphs, the first 
being substantially the same as in the preceding apportionment acts, except 
the basis of representation is increased. Section 2 provides as follows: “ That 
in every case where a State is entitled to more than one Representative in 
Congress, the number shall be elected by districts composed of contiguous ter¬ 
ritory equal in number to the number of Representatives to which such State 
may be entitled, no one district to be entitled to more than one Represenative.” 
This is the first time in the history of apportionment legislation any reference 
is made to congressional districts, Members of Congress having been prior 
to this time either elected at large in the several States or elected by districts 
fixed by the several States independent of congressional action. In most 
cases, however, they were elected at large. (5 Stat. L., p. 491.) 

By act of Congress, effective May 23, 1850, provision was made for taking 
the seventh decennial census. In this act Congress authorized the Secretary of 
the Interior to apportion Representatives in Congress among the several States 
and fixed the number of Members at 233. This act provided for electing one 
Representative at Large for each major fraction of the ratio. This act also 
provided for the taking of the census by the United States marshals of the 
several States. This is the first time in the history of our Government (and 
I think the only time) that Congress provided for taking the census and de¬ 
termining the representation in Congress in the same act. Under the provisions 
of this act the Secretary of the Interior was not only directed to apportion 
Representatives in Congress among the several States, but he was also directed 
to certify the result to the House of Representatives and to the governors of the 
several States. (9 Stat. L., p. 433.) 

However, supplementary to this act, Congress passed an act, effective July 30, 
1852, directing the Secretary of the Interior to enforce the provisions of the 
above-mentioned act. It appears the census returns from the State of Cali¬ 
fornia were incomplete, wh'ch had resulted in delay on the part of the Secretary 
of the Interior in complying with the law. The act further provided for an 
increase of the total membership, previously fixed at 233, to 234. (10 Stat. L., 

p. 25.) 

By act of Congress, approved March 4, 1862, it was provided “ that from and 
after the 3d day of March, 1863, the number of Members of the House of Rep¬ 
resentatives of the Congress of the United States shall be 241; and the eight 
additional Members shall be assigned one each to Pennsylvania, Ohio, Ken¬ 
tucky, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Vermont, and Rhode Island.” This act was 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 93 

silent as to the question of laying States out into congressional districts. (12 
Stat. L., p. 353.) 

By act of Congress, approved February 2, 1872, Congress fixed the number of 
Representatives at 283 Members, to be elected by districts composed of con¬ 
tiguous territory and containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of in¬ 
habitants. Under this act provision was made for electing Members at Large 
in the States in which an increased number of Representatives had been given 
under the law, providing that the other Representatives to which the State was 
entitled should be elected by districts then provided for until the legislature of 
said State might otherwise provide before the time fixed by law for the election 
of such Representatives. This act also fixed the first Tuesday after the first 
Monday in November, beginning with the year 187(1, as the day for electing 
Representatives and Delegates in Congress. This act also provided a method of 
filling vacancies on account of death or resignation in Congress. Section 6 of 
the act provided for the enforcement of the fourteenth article of amendment. 
(17 Stat. L.. p. 28.) 

By act of Congress approved February 25, 1882, the House of Representa¬ 
tives was to be composed of 325 Members, there be ng no reference to the 
ratio of representation. Section 3 of the act provided that Representatives 
should be elected by districts composed of contiguous territory and each con¬ 
taining, as nearly as practicable, an equal number of inhabitants. The con¬ 
clusion of this section follows in the nature of an amendment: “That unless 
the legislature of such State shall otherwise provide before the election of 
such Representatives shall take place as provided by law, where no change 
shall be hereby made in the representation of a State, Representatives thereof 
to the Forty-eighth Congress shall be elected therein as now prescribed by 
law. If the number as hereby provided for shall be larger than it: was be¬ 
fore this change, then the additional Representative or Representatives al¬ 
lowed to said State under this apportionment may be elected by the States 
at large, and the other Representatives to which the State is entitled by the 
districts as now prescribed by law in said State; and if the number hereby 
provided for shall in any State be less than it was before the change hereby 
made, then the whole number to such State hereby provided for shall be 
elected at large unless the legislature of said State has provided or shall other¬ 
wise provide before the time fixed by law for the next election of Representa¬ 
tives therein.” (22 Stat. L., p. 5.) 

By act of Congress approved February 7, 1891, the number of Representa¬ 
tives was fixed at 356 Members, apportioned among the several States accord¬ 
ing to the provisions of this act, without reference to the ratio of representa¬ 
tion as in the preceding reapportionment act. This act also provided for the 
election of Representatives by districts composed of contiguous territory and 
containing, as nearly as practicable, an equal number of inhabitants. Section 
4 of the act, which is very similar to section 3 of the preceding act, is as 
follows: “That in case of an increase in the number of Representatives which 
may be given to any State under this apportionment, such additional Repre¬ 
sentative or Representatives shall be elected by the State at large, and the 
other Representatives by the districts now prescribed by law, until the legis¬ 
lature of such State, in the manner herein prescribed, shall redistrict such 
State; and if there be no increase in the number of Representatives for the 
State, the Representatives thereof shall be elected from the districts now 
prescribed by law until such State be red ist Feted as herein prescribed by the 
legislature of said State.” (26 Stat. L., p. 735.) 

Following the census of 1900, by act of Congress approved January 16, 1901, 
the number of Representatives was fixed at 386 Members, apportioned among 
the several States as in the two preceding acts without reference to the ratio. 
Til's act contained substantially the same provision, both with regard to lay¬ 
ing out the States into congressional districts and electing Representatives 
at Large. Section 4, however, contains this provis on: “ If the number hereby 
provided for shall in any State be less than it was before the change hereby 
made, then the whole number in such State hereby provided for shall be 
elected at large, unless the legislatures of the said States have provided or 
shall otherwise provide before the time fixed by law for the next election of 
Representatives therein.” (31 Stat. L., p. 733) 

Following the census of 1910, by act of Congress approved August 8, 1911, 
the number of Representatives was fixed at 433 Members without reference to 


94 


APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. 


ratio. This act contains the same provisions with regard to the method of 
electing Members of Congress and laying States out into congressional districts 
composed of contiguous territory as in the act of 1901. Under section 4 of this 
act the same provision was enacted in relation to electing Members at Large 
as in the preceding reapportionment act, except no provision was made for 
electing Members at Large on account of a reduction of membership, because 
under this act no State lost a Member. This act contained an additional 
section relating to the method of nominating candidates for Congress at large. 
(37 Stat. L., p. 13.) 

Under the apportionment act of February 25, 1S82, Maine and a few other 
States each lost a Member of Congress. This act provided specifically for the 
election of Members of Congress at large, in the event a State lost representa¬ 
tion, until such time as the legislature might redistrict the same. While the 
reapportionment act of January 16, 1901, contained the same provision con¬ 
cerning the election of Members of Congress at large, in the event a State lost 
membership, as was provided in the act of February 25, 1882, yet under this 
act no State lost membership. It will be observed from the foregoing Iristory of 
reapportionment legislation that Congress did not exercise its power, under the 
Constitution, in directing the several States in the formation of congressional 
districts during the first 50 years of our national life. In other words, the 
States were left free to either elect Members of Congress at large or to elect 
them from local congressional districts of their own making. 

Reviewing the history of congressional elections, it is found that in a vast 
majority of cases Members of Congress were elected at large in all the 
States prior to 1842. In that year, however, Congress for the first time 
provided that in every case where a State "was entitled to more than one 
Representative in Congress, the number to which such State was entitled 
should be elected by congressional districts composed of contiguous territory, 
equal in number to the number of Representatives to which such State was 
entitled according to the provisions of the act. 

In the reapportionment act of February 2, 1872, Congress not only provided 
that congressional districts should be composed of contiguous territory, but 
that such districts should be composed as nearly as practicable of equal popu¬ 
lation. From that day to this, in every reapportionment act, Congress has 
provided that the several States should be laid out into congressional districts 
composed of contiguous territory and of equal population. 

Under the apportionment act of May 23, 1850, Congress delegated authority 
to the Secretary of the Interior to reapportion Representatives in Congress 
according to the census herein provided for, and to certify the result to the 
House of Representatives and to the governors of the several States. 

It is clear from the above-cited cases that Congress from time to time 
could just as easily have provided that the governors of States might lay out 
the States into congressional districts as for the legislatures to have done so, 
because it is from the reapportionment act itself the States derive their 
authority to lay out congressional districts, and not from the Federal Consti¬ 
tution. Hence, Congress can delegate such authority either to the legislatures 
or to the governors of the several States. 

(The committee thereupon, at 11 o’clock a. m., adjourned to meet 
at the call of the chairman.) 


X 



library of congress 



0 012 322 254 4 J 


4 








































